Here's the thing about CharlottesvilleIt

[iamwhatiseem]

Someone died.
Why did they die? At the hands of one person? Is it only that man's fault?
Anyone with an ounce of objectivity and allow themselves to think critically will know that it is more complicated than just one nut.
ANTIFA absolutely shares in the blame of that girls death. They went there looking for a fight. In photos prior to the violence, ANTIFA members posed with clubs and bats. They came their to incite violence, and violence is what they got. And a girl died in that violence.
Also, the local authorities share in the blame. Since when does the right to protest give you the right to carry deadly weapons?? They stood there and did nothing. And a girl died as a result.
Not to take the blame off the guy. If he did it on purpose then he is a murderer and will spend the rest of his life in prison for it.
But he is not the only blame.

 

[BULLDOG]

I know we've beaten this topic to death here and there must be at least a few dozen threads on the topic at least, but I feel like there is a profound point or two that needs to be made. You can agree with me or disagree, I don't really care. This is simply my viewpoint on the situation as a whole.

First of all, to view this as a binary left/right issue is patently stupid. In fact, to view this as a singular issue is equally foolish. This is actually several issues rolled into one and it's being promoted as a binary narrative by the media and the liberal left, as well as many on the right who've fallen for the trap.

Let's get some things in order so we have clarity. Charlottesville had proposed removing a Confederate monument citing it's offensiveness to certain citizens. A group of people who opposed this obtained a permit to peacefully protest the removal. The group was "Unite the Right" ...not a hate group, not white supremacists. However, several neo-nazi and KKK hate groups showed up to join the protest. Also showing up was Antifa, a radical extremist left organization who came to violently protest the protesters. The police, whether overtly or passively, were instructed to not intervene and violence erupted between the fringe extremist elements at the protest. It quickly got out of control and resulted in a slimeball white supremacist killing someone with his car.

Since then, the left has exploited the tragedy to score political points and bash Trump, Republicans, the right, Conservatives and everyone who is not a left wing liberal. The right, for the most part, have condemned the actions of the white supremacists and the violence from both sides while questioning where the police were. Trump made the statement that "there were good people on both sides." This was immediately attacked by the left and media who are fully invested in a binary narrative.

Trump was correct. There were good people on both sides. Not both sides of the violent extremist groups, but both sides of the issue regarding the removal of the statue. The peaceful protesters who didn't engage in violence. They were there to exercise their First Amendment rights. And this is where the left (and some on the right) are completely missing the point. There is more than one issue here!

First there is the issue of whether or not a Confederate statue is appropriate. Some say yes, some say no, and it doesn't have anything to do with racism or white supremacy. No doubt, there are some who favor keeping the statues who are white supremacists. There are also some who favor tearing down the statues because they hold a racist view toward white people. But these elements do not represent the vast majority of the general public. Most people who favor keeping the statues are viewing it as a historical thing that we shouldn't change because some may be offended. Most people opposed are doing so in deference to sensitivities of those who are offended. Both sides have a valid and compelling point that has nothing to do with white supremacy.

In a free society, we should be able to engage in these kind of debates without things devolving into violence. We cannot condemn violence from one side while turning a blind eye to violence from the other. We have to consistently condemn ALL the violence because that's how free society operates.

So now we see there is a clear secondary issue here. It's the right of free people to peacefully protest. Whether you agree or disagree with the right or left on this issue or any other, you should support their right to peacefully demonstrate. Violence is totally unacceptable... right OR left! It doesn't matter if you view one side as abhorrent and intolerable, they still have the right to peacefully demonstrate and you don't have the right to violently attack them.

Some on the Left have attempted to argue that "Hate Speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment. This is patently absurd. So-called "Hate Speech" is exactly what IS protected! Non-offensive speech doesn't require protection. The Left has concocted this "Hate Speech" label to apply to any speech they disagree with politically, and that's a very dangerous thing to do. You can denounce what you consider "hate speech" but you don't have any right to shut it down, especially not with violence. Once you've crossed that line into violent acts, you've lost your freedom of speech and you need to go to jail.

So you've clarified the entire issue by repeating the right wing talking points and condemning the left. How fair and balanced of you.

your perception is based on the fact that you are playing "binary" just as the OP described and
you see the "LEFT" position (disclaimer----it is not 'left' to me----a registered democrat---simply
THUG ) to be ABSOLUTELY THE ONE AND ONLY WAY TO GO

He claimed the unite the right roup was perfectly nonviolent. I suggest you double check the sites the rally was publicized on, the history of the man responsible for organizing it, and his hateful drunken remarks about the dead woman being nothing more than payback time. Doesn't sound like the gentle, peaceful people described in the OP

 

[Boss]

Nobody except Democrats in denial accept the myth about the parties switching.

Hoho, that's why the South, which was invaded by Republicans, now votes Republican. Because the South has not switched parties. Ffs.

People in the South started voting for Republicans when the Democrats abandoned the working class on issues regarding the economy and jobs. We hear about Nixon's "Southern Strategy" but Nixon didn't win the South in '68, that was George Wallace, a life-long Democrat running as an independent and former Dixiecrat.

Like I said, the whole "parties switched sides" myth is promoted in order for modern Democrats to exonerate their past. It's a fraudulent lie that has been perpetrated on the public for way too long. But again, that's the M.O. for the Dems... they've been running from their deplorable past and trying to blame it on Republicans since the Civil War.

No organization in the history of America has ever done so much to divide us by race than the Democratic Party.

 

[irosie91]

I googled-----I cannot find anything reliable that specifically states that the reason for passing laws
making felons ineligible to vote was for the purpose of oppressing blacks

Can you find anything reliable stating literacy tests for voting were to oppress blacks?

probably not------but I do not doubt that the ISSUE INCLUDED ATTEMPTS TO OPPRESS BLACKS---
keep in mind-----in the south-----blacks were not the ONLY illiterates. I do not deny the fact of
oppression of blacks in the south by DA GOOD OLD BOYS-----but I cannot vilify every confederate
soldier or officer as a devoted racist pig just as I cannot vilify every soldier in the army of adolf
during world war II . Slavery was NOT the ONLY issue that galvanized the Civil War

 

[irosie91]

I know we've beaten this topic to death here and there must be at least a few dozen threads on the topic at least, but I feel like there is a profound point or two that needs to be made. You can agree with me or disagree, I don't really care. This is simply my viewpoint on the situation as a whole.

First of all, to view this as a binary left/right issue is patently stupid. In fact, to view this as a singular issue is equally foolish. This is actually several issues rolled into one and it's being promoted as a binary narrative by the media and the liberal left, as well as many on the right who've fallen for the trap.

Let's get some things in order so we have clarity. Charlottesville had proposed removing a Confederate monument citing it's offensiveness to certain citizens. A group of people who opposed this obtained a permit to peacefully protest the removal. The group was "Unite the Right" ...not a hate group, not white supremacists. However, several neo-nazi and KKK hate groups showed up to join the protest. Also showing up was Antifa, a radical extremist left organization who came to violently protest the protesters. The police, whether overtly or passively, were instructed to not intervene and violence erupted between the fringe extremist elements at the protest. It quickly got out of control and resulted in a slimeball white supremacist killing someone with his car.

Since then, the left has exploited the tragedy to score political points and bash Trump, Republicans, the right, Conservatives and everyone who is not a left wing liberal. The right, for the most part, have condemned the actions of the white supremacists and the violence from both sides while questioning where the police were. Trump made the statement that "there were good people on both sides." This was immediately attacked by the left and media who are fully invested in a binary narrative.

Trump was correct. There were good people on both sides. Not both sides of the violent extremist groups, but both sides of the issue regarding the removal of the statue. The peaceful protesters who didn't engage in violence. They were there to exercise their First Amendment rights. And this is where the left (and some on the right) are completely missing the point. There is more than one issue here!

First there is the issue of whether or not a Confederate statue is appropriate. Some say yes, some say no, and it doesn't have anything to do with racism or white supremacy. No doubt, there are some who favor keeping the statues who are white supremacists. There are also some who favor tearing down the statues because they hold a racist view toward white people. But these elements do not represent the vast majority of the general public. Most people who favor keeping the statues are viewing it as a historical thing that we shouldn't change because some may be offended. Most people opposed are doing so in deference to sensitivities of those who are offended. Both sides have a valid and compelling point that has nothing to do with white supremacy.

In a free society, we should be able to engage in these kind of debates without things devolving into violence. We cannot condemn violence from one side while turning a blind eye to violence from the other. We have to consistently condemn ALL the violence because that's how free society operates.

So now we see there is a clear secondary issue here. It's the right of free people to peacefully protest. Whether you agree or disagree with the right or left on this issue or any other, you should support their right to peacefully demonstrate. Violence is totally unacceptable... right OR left! It doesn't matter if you view one side as abhorrent and intolerable, they still have the right to peacefully demonstrate and you don't have the right to violently attack them.

Some on the Left have attempted to argue that "Hate Speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment. This is patently absurd. So-called "Hate Speech" is exactly what IS protected! Non-offensive speech doesn't require protection. The Left has concocted this "Hate Speech" label to apply to any speech they disagree with politically, and that's a very dangerous thing to do. You can denounce what you consider "hate speech" but you don't have any right to shut it down, especially not with violence. Once you've crossed that line into violent acts, you've lost your freedom of speech and you need to go to jail.

So you've clarified the entire issue by repeating the right wing talking points and condemning the left. How fair and balanced of you.

your perception is based on the fact that you are playing "binary" just as the OP described and
you see the "LEFT" position (disclaimer----it is not 'left' to me----a registered democrat---simply
THUG ) to be ABSOLUTELY THE ONE AND ONLY WAY TO GO

He claimed the unite the right roup was perfectly nonviolent. I suggest you double check the sites the rally was publicized on, the history of the man responsible for organizing it, and his hateful drunken remarks about the dead woman being nothing more than payback time. Doesn't sound like the gentle, peaceful people described in the OP

ONE PERSON------did not constitute the motives of every statue saving person in the crowd.
Donald was right when he blamed PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES

 

[Boss]

If you say so. The so called Unite the right might not be a racist group, but they certainly advertised their rally on plenty of Hate Group sites.

It doesn't matter... it's academic. What the hell is a "hate group site?" Who got to determine what groups are hate groups and on what criteria? And when did we suspend the First Amendment for groups we deem as "hate groups" because we disagree with their political views?

It's amazing that I'm literally having to side with the ACLU against intolerant fascist tyrants like you who want to shut down free speech rights.

 

[irosie91]

Nobody except Democrats in denial accept the myth about the parties switching.

Hoho, that's why the South, which was invaded by Republicans, now votes Republican. Because the South has not switched parties. Ffs.

People in the South started voting for Republicans when the Democrats abandoned the working class on issues regarding the economy and jobs. We hear about Nixon's "Southern Strategy" but Nixon didn't win the South in '68, that was George Wallace, a life-long Democrat running as an independent and former Dixiecrat.

Like I said, the whole "parties switched sides" myth is promoted in order for modern Democrats to exonerate their past. It's a fraudulent lie that has been perpetrated on the public for way too long. But again, that's the M.O. for the Dems... they've been running from their deplorable past and trying to blame it on Republicans since the Civil War.

No organization in the history of America has ever done so much to divide us by race than the Democratic Party.

you are insisting that SOUTHERN RED NECK DEMOCRATS are the only democrats in the WORLD.
In my world-----it was the Democrats that supported UNIONS, WELFARE, and CIVIL RIGHTS----
Yankees demos are not red neck demos

 

[irosie91]

If you say so. The so called Unite the right might not be a racist group, but they certainly advertised their rally on plenty of Hate Group sites.

It doesn't matter... it's academic. What the hell is a "hate group site?" Who got to determine what groups are hate groups and on what criteria? And when did we suspend the First Amendment for groups we deem as "hate groups" because we disagree with their political views?

It's amazing that I'm literally having to side with the ACLU against intolerant fascist tyrants like you who want to shut down free speech rights.

the basis for determining HATE GROUPS----is supposed to hinge on the aspects of group
ideology that lead to violence or infringement of the RIGHTS of other groups. ----the next
debate is "rights"

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know we've beaten this topic to death here and there must be at least a few dozen threads on the topic at least, but I feel like there is a profound point or two that needs to be made. You can agree with me or disagree, I don't really care. This is simply my viewpoint on the situation as a whole.

First of all, to view this as a binary left/right issue is patently stupid. In fact, to view this as a singular issue is equally foolish. This is actually several issues rolled into one and it's being promoted as a binary narrative by the media and the liberal left, as well as many on the right who've fallen for the trap.

Let's get some things in order so we have clarity. Charlottesville had proposed removing a Confederate monument citing it's offensiveness to certain citizens. A group of people who opposed this obtained a permit to peacefully protest the removal. The group was "Unite the Right" ...not a hate group, not white supremacists. However, several neo-nazi and KKK hate groups showed up to join the protest. Also showing up was Antifa, a radical extremist left organization who came to violently protest the protesters. The police, whether overtly or passively, were instructed to not intervene and violence erupted between the fringe extremist elements at the protest. It quickly got out of control and resulted in a slimeball white supremacist killing someone with his car.

Since then, the left has exploited the tragedy to score political points and bash Trump, Republicans, the right, Conservatives and everyone who is not a left wing liberal. The right, for the most part, have condemned the actions of the white supremacists and the violence from both sides while questioning where the police were. Trump made the statement that "there were good people on both sides." This was immediately attacked by the left and media who are fully invested in a binary narrative.

Trump was correct. There were good people on both sides. Not both sides of the violent extremist groups, but both sides of the issue regarding the removal of the statue. The peaceful protesters who didn't engage in violence. They were there to exercise their First Amendment rights. And this is where the left (and some on the right) are completely missing the point. There is more than one issue here!

First there is the issue of whether or not a Confederate statue is appropriate. Some say yes, some say no, and it doesn't have anything to do with racism or white supremacy. No doubt, there are some who favor keeping the statues who are white supremacists. There are also some who favor tearing down the statues because they hold a racist view toward white people. But these elements do not represent the vast majority of the general public. Most people who favor keeping the statues are viewing it as a historical thing that we shouldn't change because some may be offended. Most people opposed are doing so in deference to sensitivities of those who are offended. Both sides have a valid and compelling point that has nothing to do with white supremacy.

In a free society, we should be able to engage in these kind of debates without things devolving into violence. We cannot condemn violence from one side while turning a blind eye to violence from the other. We have to consistently condemn ALL the violence because that's how free society operates.

So now we see there is a clear secondary issue here. It's the right of free people to peacefully protest. Whether you agree or disagree with the right or left on this issue or any other, you should support their right to peacefully demonstrate. Violence is totally unacceptable... right OR left! It doesn't matter if you view one side as abhorrent and intolerable, they still have the right to peacefully demonstrate and you don't have the right to violently attack them.

Some on the Left have attempted to argue that "Hate Speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment. This is patently absurd. So-called "Hate Speech" is exactly what IS protected! Non-offensive speech doesn't require protection. The Left has concocted this "Hate Speech" label to apply to any speech they disagree with politically, and that's a very dangerous thing to do. You can denounce what you consider "hate speech" but you don't have any right to shut it down, especially not with violence. Once you've crossed that line into violent acts, you've lost your freedom of speech and you need to go to jail.

Note how you summarized the list of participants:

" The group was "Unite the Right" ...not a hate group, not white supremacists. However, several neo-nazi and KKK hate groups showed up to join the protest. Also showing up was Antifa, a radical extremist left organization who came to violently protest the protesters."

Conveniently omitted from the list? The hundreds, perhaps thousands of PEACEFUL counter-protesters who were also there.
That is how rightwing propaganda works at its most subtle nuanced level.

 

[irosie91]

If you say so. The so called Unite the right might not be a racist group, but they certainly advertised their rally on plenty of Hate Group sites.

It doesn't matter... it's academic. What the hell is a "hate group site?" Who got to determine what groups are hate groups and on what criteria? And when did we suspend the First Amendment for groups we deem as "hate groups" because we disagree with their political views?

It's amazing that I'm literally having to side with the ACLU against intolerant fascist tyrants like you who want to shut down free speech rights.

actually----it does matter----there is no question that the UNITE THE RIGHT people harbored lots of
Nazi scum. -------lots is not all

 

[Care4all]

Someone died.
Why did they die? At the hands of one person? Is it only that man's fault?
Anyone with an ounce of objectivity and allow themselves to think critically will know that it is more complicated than just one nut.
ANTIFA absolutely shares in the blame of that girls death. They went there looking for a fight. In photos prior to the violence, ANTIFA members posed with clubs and bats. They came their to incite violence, and violence is what they got. And a girl died in that violence.
Also, the local authorities share in the blame. Since when does the right to protest give you the right to carry deadly weapons?? They stood there and did nothing. And a girl died as a result.
Not to take the blame off the guy. If he did it on purpose then he is a murderer and will spend the rest of his life in prison for it.
But he is not the only blame.

This is why Christ said to turn the other cheek... and said if your adversary forces you to walk a mile with them, after that 'forced' mile is done, walk an extra mile with them by your own free will....

''talk is cheap''
is a fallacy...

talking is harder than simply fighting and drawing arms or fists.

 

[irosie91]

Someone died.
Why did they die? At the hands of one person? Is it only that man's fault?
Anyone with an ounce of objectivity and allow themselves to think critically will know that it is more complicated than just one nut.
ANTIFA absolutely shares in the blame of that girls death. They went there looking for a fight. In photos prior to the violence, ANTIFA members posed with clubs and bats. They came their to incite violence, and violence is what they got. And a girl died in that violence.
Also, the local authorities share in the blame. Since when does the right to protest give you the right to carry deadly weapons?? They stood there and did nothing. And a girl died as a result.
Not to take the blame off the guy. If he did it on purpose then he is a murderer and will spend the rest of his life in prison for it.
But he is not the only blame.

This is why Christ said to turn the other cheek... and said if your adversary forces you to walk a mile with them, after that 'forced' mile is done, walk an extra mile with them by your own free will....

''talk is cheap''
is a fallacy...

talking is harder than simply fighting and drawing arms or fists.

Matthew is UNRELIABLE-------the forced mile refers to Roman Oppression and comes from roman
sycophantism (IMHO) The "turn cheek" thing seems genuine------consistent with Hillel

 

[Boss]

you are insisting that SOUTHERN RED NECK DEMOCRATS are the only democrats in the WORLD.
In my world-----it was the Democrats that supported UNIONS, WELFARE, and CIVIL RIGHTS----
Yankees demos are not red neck demos

If it hadn't been for Republicans, Civil Rights would've never passed.

Welfare has done nothing but enable a dependency class which is the antithesis of individual liberty.

Unions, in collusion with Big Government, has destroyed our manufacturing sector.

You want to talk about the eugenics ideas of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood? She wasn't from the South.

Wanna talk about the 1924 Democratic Convention... aka: The Klanbake?

How about FDR interning Japanese-Americans in prison camps?

Woodrow Wilson re-segregating the military?

Lots of non-Southern Rednecks who were deplorable and despicable Democrats.

 

[Boss]

the basis for determining HATE GROUPS----is supposed to hinge on the aspects of group
ideology that lead to violence or infringement of the RIGHTS of other groups. ----the next
debate is "rights"

You can find a way to apply this criteria to virtually ANY group.

It's Unconstitutional!

 

[BULLDOG]

I know we've beaten this topic to death here and there must be at least a few dozen threads on the topic at least, but I feel like there is a profound point or two that needs to be made. You can agree with me or disagree, I don't really care. This is simply my viewpoint on the situation as a whole.

First of all, to view this as a binary left/right issue is patently stupid. In fact, to view this as a singular issue is equally foolish. This is actually several issues rolled into one and it's being promoted as a binary narrative by the media and the liberal left, as well as many on the right who've fallen for the trap.

Let's get some things in order so we have clarity. Charlottesville had proposed removing a Confederate monument citing it's offensiveness to certain citizens. A group of people who opposed this obtained a permit to peacefully protest the removal. The group was "Unite the Right" ...not a hate group, not white supremacists. However, several neo-nazi and KKK hate groups showed up to join the protest. Also showing up was Antifa, a radical extremist left organization who came to violently protest the protesters. The police, whether overtly or passively, were instructed to not intervene and violence erupted between the fringe extremist elements at the protest. It quickly got out of control and resulted in a slimeball white supremacist killing someone with his car.

Since then, the left has exploited the tragedy to score political points and bash Trump, Republicans, the right, Conservatives and everyone who is not a left wing liberal. The right, for the most part, have condemned the actions of the white supremacists and the violence from both sides while questioning where the police were. Trump made the statement that "there were good people on both sides." This was immediately attacked by the left and media who are fully invested in a binary narrative.

Trump was correct. There were good people on both sides. Not both sides of the violent extremist groups, but both sides of the issue regarding the removal of the statue. The peaceful protesters who didn't engage in violence. They were there to exercise their First Amendment rights. And this is where the left (and some on the right) are completely missing the point. There is more than one issue here!

First there is the issue of whether or not a Confederate statue is appropriate. Some say yes, some say no, and it doesn't have anything to do with racism or white supremacy. No doubt, there are some who favor keeping the statues who are white supremacists. There are also some who favor tearing down the statues because they hold a racist view toward white people. But these elements do not represent the vast majority of the general public. Most people who favor keeping the statues are viewing it as a historical thing that we shouldn't change because some may be offended. Most people opposed are doing so in deference to sensitivities of those who are offended. Both sides have a valid and compelling point that has nothing to do with white supremacy.

In a free society, we should be able to engage in these kind of debates without things devolving into violence. We cannot condemn violence from one side while turning a blind eye to violence from the other. We have to consistently condemn ALL the violence because that's how free society operates.

So now we see there is a clear secondary issue here. It's the right of free people to peacefully protest. Whether you agree or disagree with the right or left on this issue or any other, you should support their right to peacefully demonstrate. Violence is totally unacceptable... right OR left! It doesn't matter if you view one side as abhorrent and intolerable, they still have the right to peacefully demonstrate and you don't have the right to violently attack them.

Some on the Left have attempted to argue that "Hate Speech" isn't protected by the First Amendment. This is patently absurd. So-called "Hate Speech" is exactly what IS protected! Non-offensive speech doesn't require protection. The Left has concocted this "Hate Speech" label to apply to any speech they disagree with politically, and that's a very dangerous thing to do. You can denounce what you consider "hate speech" but you don't have any right to shut it down, especially not with violence. Once you've crossed that line into violent acts, you've lost your freedom of speech and you need to go to jail.

So you've clarified the entire issue by repeating the right wing talking points and condemning the left. How fair and balanced of you.

your perception is based on the fact that you are playing "binary" just as the OP described and
you see the "LEFT" position (disclaimer----it is not 'left' to me----a registered democrat---simply
THUG ) to be ABSOLUTELY THE ONE AND ONLY WAY TO GO

He claimed the unite the right roup was perfectly nonviolent. I suggest you double check the sites the rally was publicized on, the history of the man responsible for organizing it, and his hateful drunken remarks about the dead woman being nothing more than payback time. Doesn't sound like the gentle, peaceful people described in the OP

ONE PERSON------did not constitute the motives of every statue saving person in the crowd.
Donald was right when he blamed PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES

That one person organized the rally and had massive input into who showed up. It was publicized on the Daily Stormer, and militia sites.

 

[BULLDOG]

If you say so. The so called Unite the right might not be a racist group, but they certainly advertised their rally on plenty of Hate Group sites.

It doesn't matter... it's academic. What the hell is a "hate group site?" Who got to determine what groups are hate groups and on what criteria? And when did we suspend the First Amendment for groups we deem as "hate groups" because we disagree with their political views?

It's amazing that I'm literally having to side with the ACLU against intolerant fascist tyrants like you who want to shut down free speech rights.

You're grabbing at straws now.

 

[Boss]

That one person organized the rally and had massive input into who showed up. It was publicized on the Daily Stormer, and militia sites.

IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER!

Read the fucking First Amendment!

 

[Boss]

You're grabbing at straws now

Grabbing at straws?

Read the First Amendment!

 

[BULLDOG]

That one person organized the rally and had massive input into who showed up. It was publicized on the Daily Stormer, and militia sites.

IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER!

Read the fucking First Amendment!

Right. The OP said unite the right was all non violent people. Now you say it doesn't matter. Are you confused?

 

[irosie91]

you are insisting that SOUTHERN RED NECK DEMOCRATS are the only democrats in the WORLD.
In my world-----it was the Democrats that supported UNIONS, WELFARE, and CIVIL RIGHTS----
Yankees demos are not red neck demos

If it hadn't been for Republicans, Civil Rights would've never passed.

Welfare has done nothing but enable a dependency class which is the antithesis of individual liberty.

Unions, in collusion with Big Government, has destroyed our manufacturing sector.

You want to talk about the eugenics ideas of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood? She wasn't from the South.

Wanna talk about the 1924 Democratic Convention... aka: The Klanbake?

How about FDR interning Japanese-Americans in prison camps?

Woodrow Wilson re-segregating the military?

If it had not been for DEMOCRATS----civil rights would never have passed---(a greater
in put than that of republicans)

welfare dependency is an unintended consequence of the program which ALSO
feeds kids that would otherwise die of starvation

Unions is good

Margaret Sanger was an impoverished Irish catholic kid in a family with too many
kids. She managed to survive. She spoke from HER OWN EXPERIENCE----
and a strong desire to save children from suffering. She made comments that have been
twisted and turned to SEEM racist. Are you suggesting that she hated Irish catholics for some
racial reason?

I know very little about the 1924 Democratic convention

FDR was convinced that he had to intern Japanese people for the security of the USA---
he made a mistake He considered himself to be between a rock and a hard place

I was in the military-----POTENTIAL for violence and crime in matters of sex is a misnomer------
it ain't POTENTIAL---------IT IS. There are lots of reasons to impose all kinds of restrictions


Lots of non-Southern Rednecks who were deplorable and despicable Democrats.