NYTimes Exterminates George Bush!

[NYcarbineer]

So Johnson signs the Civil Rights bill, he's the racist.

Goldwater votes against it, then within months is the presidential nominee of the GOP, and somehow he's the black man's best friend.

You're fucking nuts.

Apparently, the electorate was smart enough to know this in 1964. LBJ won with 61.04% of the NPV, but Goldwater picked up 4 southern states that has essentially never gone Republican ever. Fascinating, what?

Only proves that the media was effective in helping a racist like LBJ win. I remember the main accusation was that Goldwater was a warmonger, yet it was LBJ who was profiting off of the Vietnam war.

LBJ SIGNED the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Goldwater VOTED AGAINST IT.

That is why the South went Republican in 1964.

 

[peach174]

The Dems held the majority at that point

That's a lie.

Why am I not shocked?

No it is true.
The Dems in the Senate had the majority in 2001.
In the 2000 election, Republicans retained control of the House but the Senate split 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. In May 2001, Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties from Republican to Independent and began caucusing with the Democrats, giving the Democrats the effective majority and making then-Sen. Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) the majority leader.

 

[Yarddog]

I see we've been merged. The thread I was with said Bush was "cropped" out of the photo. This one says "exterminated". Neither is true of course; they compare different pictures. The one with Bush on the right, again, shows far fewer people in the background, where the one used shows a completely full image of a mass of people. Anyone who's ever set up a newspaper can see that (image impact) is the criterion for choosing front page splash.

Moreover the comparable pic with Bush marching shows a dearth of people specifically on his side of the street -- most of the crowd is on the side with O'bama. Now whether that means the marchers following were deliberately avoiding the right (their left) side of the street because Bush was in the front is unknown and open to speculation. It would be further idle speculation to suggest the NYT didn't run that shot because the population spread would make him look bad by implication -- and I don't believe that was the case. But the symbolism is clearly there, it would have made Bush look at the least unpopular, and had the photo run we might expect the same wags would be whining for that reason.

I'm thinking specificlly of this pic, which USMB seems to have eliminated when it merged threads and disappeared IamwhatIseem's OP:

​

And not insignificant, speaking of symbolism, is that giant can't-be-ignored divider between the two of them. That would not have sent a positive message, now would it?

The unedited version below is even more insidious, Im afraid. but , whoever planned this march could have made it much more meaningful had Bush and Obama been walking side by side.


View attachment 37641

Yeah, Bush and Laura could have bumped the two ladies in wheelchairs off to the fringe.

or they could have stood on the other side

 

[Yarddog]

I see we've been merged. The thread I was with said Bush was "cropped" out of the photo. This one says "exterminated". Neither is true of course; they compare different pictures. The one with Bush on the right, again, shows far fewer people in the background, where the one used shows a completely full image of a mass of people. Anyone who's ever set up a newspaper can see that (image impact) is the criterion for choosing front page splash.

Moreover the comparable pic with Bush marching shows a dearth of people specifically on his side of the street -- most of the crowd is on the side with O'bama. Now whether that means the marchers following were deliberately avoiding the right (their left) side of the street because Bush was in the front is unknown and open to speculation. It would be further idle speculation to suggest the NYT didn't run that shot because the population spread would make him look bad by implication -- and I don't believe that was the case. But the symbolism is clearly there, it would have made Bush look at the least unpopular, and had the photo run we might expect the same wags would be whining for that reason.

I'm thinking specificlly of this pic, which USMB seems to have eliminated when it merged threads and disappeared IamwhatIseem's OP:

​

And not insignificant, speaking of symbolism, is that giant can't-be-ignored divider between the two of them. That would not have sent a positive message, now would it?

The unedited version below is even more insidious, Im afraid. but , whoever planned this march could have made it much more meaningful had Bush and Obama been walking side by side.


View attachment 37641

Yeah, Bush and Laura could have bumped the two ladies in wheelchairs off to the fringe.

So its more important for Obama to be photographed with other black people, than for a president and the former president to be walking side by side in what is suppossed to be something important. The whole thing is about symbolism anyway, so if your going to bother to do that, they should have put them side by side. Its a symbol of the Nation coming together over civil rights. PISS poor planning by whoever put this on , I could have done a better job

 

[Pogo]

Complete horseshit. No wonder you had to have a Googly image make your point so that you could run away.

Number one, Fallacy of Composition assumes that some sample group, e.g. Southerners, are predominantly Democrats, ergo every action they take is driven by their, of all things, political philosophy. Which was conservative anyway.

Number two, fundamental ignorance of what political parties are and how they work. A political party is a device to acquire and consolidate power. That's it, end of definition. To imagine a political party is some sort of fixed point in space that never ever shifts with the political winds is to be at best a blind partisan hack and at worse a moron.

Moreover by the beginning of the Civil War for practical purposes only the Democratic Party even existed; the RP was six years old and just getting started. Whigs were dead. Know-Nothings, Anti-Masons, Free Soilers and several others had sparked, fizzled and died off. The election of as recently as 1824 didn't even have parties involved. To apply the circumstances we have today where a single party (cleverly disguised as two) completely and totally dominate everything to an era when we the people changed political parties like shirts is profound ignorance. Go look up the "First Party System" and "Second Party System" in a history book. Git chew a edumacation. This application of contemporary dichotomy to the past is Blatantly Beyond Bullshit.

All of this time the issue of slavery was building, hotly debated, even causing some of those myriad parties to rise an fall. James Buchanan is widely held to be the worst or second-worst POTUS ever for his failure to address it. But to suggest the Civil War was somehow caused by "Democrats" in the South one day up and seceding out of nothing is to not only display the same abject ignorance of American history but to rudely insult the reader's intelligence.

More moreover on this point -- in the election of 1860 the Republican candidate obviously was Lincoln, being the second candidate that party ever ran. Who was the Democratic nominee? Steven Douglas.

How may states did Lincoln win in the South? Zero.
How many states did Douglas win in the South? Zero.

The South wasn't having the DP, disrupted the convention which had to be suspended, walked out and formed their own parties and candidates (two of them) -- a pattern that would re-enact itself several times in the future (1924, 1948, 1964) so to identify the South with a political party philosophically is outright disingenuousness ---- and articulates that same American history ignorance again. Because as just stated above, the purpose of a political party is to acquire power -- not to represent an ideology. The latter changes with the wind; the former never does.

More to follow on this complete crock of anti-American revisionist claptrap. Got things to do. I shall return.

Number three, neither "Democrats" nor Nathan Bedford Forrest founded any incarnation of the KKK. That was done (the first time) by some young Confederate veteran soldiers -- as a social club, in 1865 (Christmas Day), out of small-town boredom. A lark. All the Greek terms and alliteration of "kleagles" and "klaverns" exemplifies that. When they dressed up in sheets and rode through town, at that time not as any kind of terrorist act but a simple college-kid prank, they were surprised to find strong visible reaction and took on the sheets as a kind of uniform.

Context: What was happening at the same time however is where the plot sickens -- having just been vanquished and humiliated in a war they expected to win, factions in the South rose up in resistance and guerilla warfare, targeting what they saw as occupying forces from the North as well as the newly-freed slaves whenever they did outrageously unacceptable things like request a fair wage, dare to walk into town, or try to vote. These targets were at the least intimidated and at worst, publicly hanged, burned alive, even skinned. In effect the War was not over. Sometimes these incidents were flash mobs, but several paramilitary groups formed, usually by Confederate soldier veterans, to organize the resistance. The Knights of the White Camellia is probably the second-best known. The White League -- and several others. Into the originally-innocuous Ku Klux Klan came this dynamic, and it became a vehicle for the same violence all the insurgents were doing.

By the way, these six young veterans who started the Klan? No known political affiliation. Just college-age veteran soldiers. In 1865 there wasn't much in the South in the way of politics-as-usual anyway-- the entire focus, for what had been as long as anyone could remember the ruling class (i.e. whites), was either picking up one's shattered life, rising up in armed resistance, or both. So the idea of normal political debate in that time and place as in two or more alternative political philosophies-- didn't even exist. And I specify whites because no one else had power.

Here lie the seeds of the Democratic 99-year (white) dominance of the South; it's just been vanquished and humiliated by the first President of the newfangled "Republican Party"; associating with that party is going to be literally unthinkable for generations. Lincoln's party represents the "aggressor". In a kind of supreme irony the South saw itself as enslaved by the North. But we digress with background here -- the point is the Klan was neither founded by a political party; it wasn't even founded as a terrorist group. Revisionism's a bitch.

Back to the Klan and Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest had been a prominent Civil War general, and by accounts from both sides a brilliant strategist, and so had status. The rising KKK asked Forrest to be the figurehead of the organization in the spring of 1867 -- a year and a half after the KKK was already formed and looking to expand, organize and take on legitimacy. So he wasn't a "founder", which again displays the abject pig-ignorance of making points via Google Images, than which on a message board there's probably no more cowardly act. Matter of fact once the violence got out of control he issued an order disbanding the Klan in January of 1869 and thereafter denied being a part of it. In spite of this, freelancers -- again, like the war not accepting of an ending -- kept up the action for a few years into the 1870s before Grant and the government suppressed it out of existence. By the end of the 1870s the Klan was dead. As were the other paramilitary groups that had sprung up synonymously with them.

So why do we know of the Klan so prominently today and not the White League? Because in 1915 (a time which had degraded to the absolute nadir of racial strife in this country, a tenor the school history books somehow forget to point out), a preacher-turned-salesman and inveterate club-starter/joiner in Georgia named William Simmons revived it, capitalizing on the impact of the racist film "Birth of a Nation" which glorified the KKK, which was at the time an romanticized artifact of decades past. Simmons, working off the film, introduced the whole burning crosses schtick, in fact using the imagery to (re)start the organization on Stone Mountain. By 1920 he had hired PR agents to proselytize the Klan and grow it -- after all, there was money to be made in memberships.

Oh by the way just to stay on point , William Simmons? Again, no known political affiliation. He insisted the Klan was a "fraternal" organization -- although clearly a polarizing one

Context: What was happening at the time here was not only the blanket of racism across the country with lynchings and race riots going on regularly, but an isolationism derived from a recent influx of immigrants, especially from central and eastern Europe. So Simmons' Klan expanded its hatred to not just blacks but equal-opportunity terrorism against Catholics, Jews, loose women and adulterers, and communists, hailing themselves as champions of "100% Americanism", which might sound eerily familiar. In one instance they took a (white) woman out an whipped her for "failing to go to church" and when her 15-year-old son came out to defend her they whipped him too.

Simmons' PR people used the isolationism angle to build up huge memberships around the country, far outside the South, and this is the point where they get into politics. Not with a particular party -- Democrats in the South, Republicans in the midwest and west. Whatever worked at the time. In Oregon they got a Democrat into the governor's chair and a Republican as mayor of Portland, Republican Senators and Governors in Colorado and Indiana. Republican city council in Anaheim. And obviously, Democrats in the South. Because unlike your façile Google Imagery, the KKK at least understood what a political party is and what it isn't.

Matter of fact when a Governor in Oklahoma (Walton) tried to drive the Klan out after the infamous Tulsa race riots, the KKK got him removed. When a Presidential candidate from Alabama (Underwood) denounced the Klan, they denounced him and muscled him out of contention. Walton and Underwood were both Democrats.

Doesn't fit your Big Ugly Loosey-Loosey Superficial Hotlinked Image Theory does it? The things you find out when you look under the BULLSHIT.

This second Klan, after internal power struggles and infighting and a huge rape scandal, followed by the Depression and World War Two, dwindled in its influence and largely spun down. Then in 1946 a dentist named Samuel Green tried to re-form and reorgaize it again, once again on Stone Mountain. Again playing on nativism, Green targeted the "uppity nigras who got all the good jobs while you were in uniform" as well as the influx of Jewish refugees from the Holocaust. Happily Green was killed by a heart attack in 1949, decentralizing and splintering the group which has been intermittently sputtering ever since.

Oh and this Samuel Green? All together now -- no known political affiliation.

What your dumbdown image is trying to do here is play pollitical football with what is clearly (racism, anti-Semitism, bigotry in general and theocracy) a cultural issue. Trying to play dress-up with demons not only plays the Eliminationist monolithic-thought game but in fact cheapens the entire question and in effect suppresses examination of it.

And I will not allow this pig-ignorant revisionism.

Your last point about Opelousas -- no idea. There's no link. There's no link to any of this bullshit.

Here's some links. Study them. And quit promulgating Google Image Bullshit. It's counterproductive. This ain't no fucking football game, Jack.

Ku Klux Klan - a History of Racism
Klan in Oregon
Kolorado Klan Kountry
Red Summer
The Irony of the Solid South: Democrats, Republicans and Race, 1865-1944

Git chew a edumacation. Quit trying to dumb us down.

 

[Pogo]

99% of Republican politicians cropped themselves out of the photos,

by not showing up. They did so to remind us that the modern GOP wants nothing to do with anything associated with the GOP of 1965.

This is a picture of Democrats harassing blacks and whites that are trying to have lunch with them in the 60s...

Where do you see anybody's party affiliation? Registration cards sticking out of their pockets? Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?

Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.

 

[Pogo]

Third thread on this.

The choice was obvious: include the entire First Family and cut out Bush or publish the entire image with faces so small they would be recognizable. Bush just isn't important enough to include.

I still say I wish would have just edited him out before he did the enormous damage he did.

I disagree, respectfully. The president of a former President at this event is indeed important to record. The NYT could have put two photos in. It often puts in two photos for lots of things.

Whether it's deliberate or not, I don't know. But it was bad judgement. On this one, NLT, amazingly, gets a point from me.

And you get a point from me. Amazing, ain't it?

Well, hold the jury on that one:

Well, actually:

NYT photographer We didn t crop George W. Bush from Selma pic - Nick Gass - POLITICO

“Just so you know, President Bush was not cropped out, he was not in that frame because he was so far to our right,” photographer Doug Mills wrote in an email to POLITICO.

In a note to photo editors on Sunday, Mills said he didn’t file the shot with Bush included because it was overexposed.

“I did not even send this frame because it’s very wide and super busy and Bush is super-overexposed because he was in the sun and Obama and the others are in the shade,” Mills wrote, per Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan.

So he didn't crop a photo, he composed it in such a way that he didn't have to. OK, gotcha.

Actually, yes.

And when you look at the original panorama, indeed, the former President and his lovely wife are in very bright light, whilst the President and his lovely wife and kids are in shade.

It still may have been bad judgement, but maybe it was simply a photographer doing his job.

It certainly is amazing the lengths that Righties will go to bellyache.

That, and the whole assemblage clearly says "everybody's following O'bama, nobody wants to follow Bush, and there's a huge divider between them". You gotta wonder if that's really the image they'd want the NYT to have gone with.

(duh)

Drones....

 

[Pogo]

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode. NOW you can cite chew some polarization.
BIG time.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated. /offtopic

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP. Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.

 

[boilermaker55]

This seems to fit you so eloquently......

Just helping out someone that needed a little help.
You are so welcome!

EXTERMINATES?
Who spelled the word for you?
LOL what a laughable headline.
At least faux news taught you one thing..........
ex·ag·ger·ate
iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
verb
verb: exaggerate; 3rd person present: exaggerates; past tense: exaggerated; past participle: exaggerated; gerund or present participle: exaggerating
represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
"they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate

It was not by accident.
I use words with precision.

1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.

2. I exaggerated with purpose.
Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
Pink is good for your political persuasion.

How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?

We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....



1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo

2.

3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.

The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.
Discrimination still exists in America.


4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.
Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit

It was not by accident.

1. It means to eradicate, to remove, which is what the NYSlimes did to suggest he was not in attendance.

2. I exaggerated with purpose.
Glad it got so deeply under your skin that you defaulted to large pink font.
Pink

EXTERMINATES?
Who spelled the word for you?
LOL what a laughable headline.
At least faux news taught you one thing..........
ex·ag·ger·ate
iɡˈzajəˌrāt/
verb
verb: exaggerate; 3rd person present: exaggerates; past tense: exaggerated; past participle: exaggerated; gerund or present participle: exaggerating
represent (something) as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is.
"they were apt to exaggerate any aches and pains"
synonyms: overstate, overemphasize, overestimate, magnify, amplify, aggrandize, inflate

How does the media....wholly owned by Liberalism, Inc., pull the less astuted into their fold?

We got an example of it in the action this week by the NYSlimes....



1. "Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo

2.

3. The 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march was held in Selma, Alabama on Saturday.

The New York Times cropped out the George and Laura Bush.
Discrimination still exists in America.


4. ....this is an example of how today's "authorized journalists" rewrite history as it actually happens. However, the truth is, it's not new. This has been going on for at least a century but really probably since the beginning of time.
Predictable. NY Times Crops Out George W. Bush from Selma March Photo The Gateway Pundit

There's really no explanation for your word-salad of a post, as you clearly didn't help anyone out, including yourself.
In fact, you came off looking pretty much a dunce, know what I mean, pinky?

You thought I inadvertently used 'exterminate,' and I disabused that notion.

So....the "You are so welcome!" is really seen as your effort to save face.

That's a quandary as well: how can you save what you never had?

 

[mudwhistle]

99% of Republican politicians cropped themselves out of the photos,

by not showing up. They did so to remind us that the modern GOP wants nothing to do with anything associated with the GOP of 1965.

This is a picture of Democrats harassing blacks and whites that are trying to have lunch with them in the 60s...

Where do you see anybody's party affiliation? Registration cards sticking out of their pockets? Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?

Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.

Fuck You too!!!

 

[Pogo]

99% of Republican politicians cropped themselves out of the photos,

by not showing up. They did so to remind us that the modern GOP wants nothing to do with anything associated with the GOP of 1965.

This is a picture of Democrats harassing blacks and whites that are trying to have lunch with them in the 60s...

Where do you see anybody's party affiliation? Registration cards sticking out of their pockets? Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?

Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.

Fuck You too!!!

So is that a 'yes'?

Where is it? What, do you see little speech bubbles that the rest of us don't? Read minds off of photographs perhaps?
Or maybe you're reading the tea leaves in a cup on the counter.


Dumbass.
Live by the fallacy -- die by it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated. /offtopic

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP. Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.

You guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names. Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists. A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"

You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[mudwhistle]

99% of Republican politicians cropped themselves out of the photos,

by not showing up. They did so to remind us that the modern GOP wants nothing to do with anything associated with the GOP of 1965.

This is a picture of Democrats harassing blacks and whites that are trying to have lunch with them in the 60s...

Where do you see anybody's party affiliation? Registration cards sticking out of their pockets? Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?

Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.

Fuck You too!!!

So is that a 'yes'?

Where is it? What, do you see little speech bubbles that the rest of us don't? Read minds off of photographs perhaps?
Or maybe you're reading the tea leaves in a cup on the counter.


Dumbass.
Live by the fallacy -- die by it.

That's rich. An Obama supporter throwing around accusations of this sort.

I suggest you do the same. Democrats are full of falsehoods. It's their bread and butter. They live and die by their lies. Catch them in a lie and they deny it and double down on their lies.

You post all of these facts about how Northern Democrats were less racist than their Southern counterparts. Peer pressure explains much of that. Do you think a bunch of Repubs are gonna act like Southern Democrats by harrassing blacks who try to eat at the lunch counter? Highly unlikely. Even you have to admit that those Crackers were Democrats. When I was a kid just about everyone was a Democrat. I didn't know any Republicans. So chances are pretty damned good all of those assholes were Democrats

 

[Pogo]

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated. /offtopic

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP. Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.

Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.

I just did name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end. And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat? Generalize much? And... 'you guys'? Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me? Some kind of committee?

Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.

And where did I say anything like this then?
Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what? Do you have any idea what debate is?

A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"

You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.

Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.

So let's see, your homework would be...

Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?

Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...

 

[Pogo]

99% of Republican politicians cropped themselves out of the photos,

by not showing up. They did so to remind us that the modern GOP wants nothing to do with anything associated with the GOP of 1965.

This is a picture of Democrats harassing blacks and whites that are trying to have lunch with them in the 60s...

Where do you see anybody's party affiliation? Registration cards sticking out of their pockets? Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?

Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.

Fuck You too!!!

So is that a 'yes'?

Where is it? What, do you see little speech bubbles that the rest of us don't? Read minds off of photographs perhaps?
Or maybe you're reading the tea leaves in a cup on the counter.


Dumbass.
Live by the fallacy -- die by it.

That's rich. An Obama supporter throwing around accusations of this sort.

I suggest you do the same. Democrats are full of falsehoods. It's their bread and butter. They live and die by their lies. Catch them in a lie and they deny it and double down on their lies.

I just gave you copious historical details -- names, dates, places and links. You gave us Google Images based on complete bullshit, which I deconstructed with the above.

Guess which one of us is dealing in Fallacy.

And by the way how come you're putting ll this effort into derailing a thread into completely irrelevant tangents? Is something inconvenient?

 

[mudwhistle]

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated. /offtopic

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP. Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.

Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.

I just did name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end. And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat? Generalize much? And... 'you guys'? Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me? Some kind of committee?

Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.

And where did I say anything like this then?
Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what? Do you have any idea what debate is?

A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"

You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.

Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.

So let's see, your homework would be...

Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?

Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...

You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party. Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.

 

[mudwhistle]

This is a picture of Democrats harassing blacks and whites that are trying to have lunch with them in the 60s...

Where do you see anybody's party affiliation? Registration cards sticking out of their pockets? Is it tattooed on the back of the neck?

Jesus Christ in a Subaru you're a fucking moron.

Fuck You too!!!

So is that a 'yes'?

Where is it? What, do you see little speech bubbles that the rest of us don't? Read minds off of photographs perhaps?
Or maybe you're reading the tea leaves in a cup on the counter.


Dumbass.
Live by the fallacy -- die by it.

That's rich. An Obama supporter throwing around accusations of this sort.

I suggest you do the same. Democrats are full of falsehoods. It's their bread and butter. They live and die by their lies. Catch them in a lie and they deny it and double down on their lies.

I just gave you copious historical details -- names, dates, places and links. You gave us Google Images based on complete bullshit, which I deconstructed with the above.

Guess which one of us is dealing in Fallacy.

And by the way how come you're putting ll this effort into derailing a thread into completely irrelevant tangents? Is something inconvenient?

Sometimes that's what happens in a thread. Somebody makes a claim and others try to disprove it and so-on.

Sometimes we have to use a little God Damned common-sense. It's clear that is a rare occurance when dealing with the constant Bullshit that comes from the Democratic Party these days.

 

[Pogo]

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated. /offtopic

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP. Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.

Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.

I just did name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end. And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat? Generalize much? And... 'you guys'? Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me? Some kind of committee?

Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.

And where did I say anything like this then?
Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what? Do you have any idea what debate is?

A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"

You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.

Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.

So let's see, your homework would be...

Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?

Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...

You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party. Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.

Fair enough. I said "thousands" to retain the movie catchphrase but I meant "millions"...

1944:

1956:

1980:

2000:

 

[Pogo]

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated. /offtopic

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP. Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.

Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.

I just did name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end. And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat? Generalize much? And... 'you guys'? Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me? Some kind of committee?

Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.

And where did I say anything like this then?
Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what? Do you have any idea what debate is?

A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"

You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.

Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.

So let's see, your homework would be...

Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?

Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...

You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party. Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.

Cherrypicking. If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes. The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither. You can't have it both ways.

One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region. That's still true; only the chosen party has changed. Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology. And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when it gets results. As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts. And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.

So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.

And that, sir, is insane.

 

[mudwhistle]

Once again for the slow readers:

There is a discernible pattern -- but 82% versus 66% doesn't show it. You run for office and end up with either of those numbers, you won. Easily.

I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)

And to think people bitch about "gridlock".

Canard obliterated. /offtopic

And FWIW it was right after this that whiner Strom Thurmond took his balls and went to the unthinkable and joined the RP. Followed by Lott, Helms, Duke and a cast of thousands.

Yet you guys assume that every racist Southern Democrat switched sides, yet you can't name names.

I just did name names -- it's directly above, echoing itself at the end. And where did I ever say "every" racist Southern Democrat? Generalize much? And... 'you guys'? Who the fuck do you think is writing this post with me? Some kind of committee?

Not to mention the stereotypes that the Tea Party is just a bunch of white racists.

And where did I say anything like this then?
Is that Strawman, like, living in your house or what? Do you have any idea what debate is?

A Republican is assumed to be a white Christian racist and for the rich, yet rich white Christian Democrats automatically are assumed to be non-racial and are for the little guy. They argue amongst themselves about how broke the they are. "I remember when I left the Whitehouse I was so broke......"

You guys live on the Strawman argument. Without it, you wouldn't have anything to say. And when it comes to SOB stories, Democrats wrote the book on it. Obama got elected by claiming his skin color was a qualification. I'm sure Hillary will use her sex precisely in the same manner. It's time to finally elect a woman. Isn't it? Who cares she's a disaster waiting to happen.

Your strawman has apparently found hisself a Strawwoman and they's fucking like bunnies.

So let's see, your homework would be...

Link/quote to my claim tht "every" Southern Democrat ..... did anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts that the Tea Party.... are anything monolithically;
Link/quote to my posts about HIllary Clinton ... even running for office?

Jesus Christ in a handbasket, it's like tribbles on the Enterprise...

You named four, which a can't agree with. Lott wasn't a racist. Jessie Helms was an old cracker. He was first a Democrat from old school politics. He didn't represent the true Republican party. He never ran for national office as a Democrat. Reagan was a better example of what a true Republican was. One that was fed up with the Democratic Party. Still, you're using a Strawman argument, claiming a cast of thousands without evidence. I want to see thousands of names from you or everything you said was Bullshit.

Cherrypicking. If, say, Jesse Helms "didn't represent the true Republican Party" then you can't turn around and make blanket statements about other people when the party changes. The rule is either true of both, or it's true of neither. You can't have it both ways.

One could as easily observe the racists in the South never represented the true Democratic Party either, that they were a sui generis anomaly of a certain regional conservative at bitter odds with their fellow party members in the Other Region. That's still true; only the chosen party has changed. Because again, as noted at the beginning, the prupose of a political party is to acquire power, not to represent any ideology. And that means the David Dukes, the Jesse Helmses, the Strom Thurmonds, the KKKs, when they want power, are going to use the Democratic Party when it gets results, and the Republican Party when it gets results. As I've demonstrated profusely in these last few posts. And if some third party starts up that's willing to take on this kind of bipolar hysteria to play both sides the same way, they'll go to that one.

So you're trying to have it both ways in this desperate flailing attempt to dumb down what is clearly a cultural-regional-geograhic aspect into some kind of political football scoreboard in an imaginary comic book world where political parties actually dictate personality in this grand bodacious Fallacy of Composition --- with its own on/off switch.

And that, sir, is insane.

Trying to lump the KKK in with a segregationist like Stromberg Thurmond is a bit of a stretch. Robert Byrd was an official member of the KKK but Democrats accepted him and kept him around even when he began babbling like a retard. I believe there are racists in the Democratic Party today. One of them sits in the Whitehouse. His Attorney General was another.

Oh, a map doesn't prove which party a voter is. There is no way of telling exactly which party a voter belongs to because it's a blind ballot. You can suggest trends but nothing specific. Sometimes a Republican will vote for a Democrat and vice-verse, but the polarization of the electorate is making that less and less common.