You mean like yelling "you lie" in the president's face? Both sides have been escalating and you can't seem to recognize it or condemn it. So I suppose it will continue to be supported and justified.
A fascinating bit of historical digression but one that completely avoided the issue ....waiting on your evidence showing the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south...until then, wipe the custard off your face.
For today's lesson, a trip down Democrat Memory Lane...an anniversary of sorts:
Murder in Mississippi | American Experience - WGBH | PBS
Democrat handiwork.
Right wing handiwork. Time to own it.
Now watch me smash a custard pie in your kisser:
1. The KKK was formed for the Democrat Party to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
2. The Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill to come to the Senate.
3. On June 21, 1964 Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, three Americans, were slaughtered by the Democrat minions to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
As I said.....and proved, Democrat handiwork.
Proving you a liar was simply a bonus.
Ideology....idiot.
For today's lesson, a trip down Democrat Memory Lane...an anniversary of sorts:
Murder in Mississippi | American Experience - WGBH | PBS
Democrat handiwork.
Right wing handiwork. Time to own it.
Time for us to own what YOUR PARTY did?
Lie much?
Post #1882 proves you a liar and a fool
".....the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south."
Never happened.
The racists, the Democrats, always were, and continue to be, racists, segregationists, and oppressors.
See if you can answer the question in post 1876 and you might win the "nazi boi" prize...otherwise I will assume your reading skills are deficient
See if you can answer the question in post 1876 and you might win the "nazi boi" prize...otherwise I will assume your reading skills are deficient
See if you can answer the question in post 1876 and you might win the "nazi boi" prize...otherwise I will assume your reading skills are deficient
A fascinating bit of historical digression but one that completely avoided the issue ....waiting on your evidence showing the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south...until then, wipe the custard off your face.
For today's lesson, a trip down Democrat Memory Lane...an anniversary of sorts:
Murder in Mississippi | American Experience - WGBH | PBS
Democrat handiwork.
Right wing handiwork. Time to own it.
Now watch me smash a custard pie in your kisser:
1. The KKK was formed for the Democrat Party to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
2. The Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill to come to the Senate.
3. On June 21, 1964 Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, three Americans, were slaughtered by the Democrat minions to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
As I said.....and proved, Democrat handiwork.
Proving you a liar was simply a bonus.
A fascinating bit of historical digression but one that completely avoided the issue ....waiting on your evidence showing the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south...until then, wipe the custard off your face.
For today's lesson, a trip down Democrat Memory Lane...an anniversary of sorts:
Murder in Mississippi | American Experience - WGBH | PBS
Democrat handiwork.
Right wing handiwork. Time to own it.
Now watch me smash a custard pie in your kisser:
1. The KKK was formed for the Democrat Party to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
2. The Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill to come to the Senate.
3. On June 21, 1964 Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, three Americans, were slaughtered by the Democrat minions to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
As I said.....and proved, Democrat handiwork.
Proving you a liar was simply a bonus.
It's also cherrypicked bullshit that's been trotted out and shot down before, which is always .... messy.
The South culturally/ideologically has never been anywhere near the "left" or anything but "conservative". At the same time the same South was for 99 years after the Civil War staunchly Democratic Party in politics. These two facts are in no way contradictory; to try to use the latter to negate and even reverse the former is blatant dishonesty. And it depends on the cult-of-ignorance fallacy idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" or any political party, mean the same thing ideologically that they meant 150 years ago, which requires the self-delusion that such entities are somehow unaffected by changing times and their own changing self-interests and stand ideologically fixed and unmoving --- which is absurd.
Examples of why the South being at once conservative and Democratic for 99 years abound.
This self-strangling theory also purports to presume that people join or work with political parties for ideological reasons only rather than practical ones, which again ignores history. The (white) South went Democratic for 99 years not out of any ideological affinity with that party --- see the abundant conflicts as noted above ---but out of sheer historical emotion, the idea of associating with the Party of Lincoln, the man who had defeated and humiliated it, being unthinkable. "Republican" was in effect a dirty word; the Republican Party did not exist in the South before or during the War (Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot in the South), and therefore its only association FOR the (white) South was as an invading/occupying army that wanted to dictate its fate from the North.
- George Wallace (Democrat) constantly raining against "Liberals" and then running against the Democrat candidate with a third party.
- Zell Miller (Democrat to this day) railing against John Kerry at the other party's convention
- Strom Thurmond and a coterie of fellow-traveler racists walking out of the party convention in 1948 and then running against the Democrat candidate (and nearly succeeding)
- Even back as far as 1860, Southern Democrats pulling the same thing as 1948, disrupting the convention, running its own candidate and pushing the Democratic nominee down to fourth place in the election
THAT is why the white South resisted the existence of "Republican" in ways as mild as shunning its candidates at the polls and as extreme as the terrorism committed by the Klan and literally dozens of other similar vigilante groups of various degrees of organization. These were insurgents resisting what they viewed as an overreaching federal government occupation --- nothing to do with political party ideologies, which indeed that same white South had already rejected in 1860.
The poster (PC) once again misquotes the historian's line, to wit:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
--- I see she's even descended to placing the term "liberal" in front of his name as a way to try to lend the misquote "credence".
--- the part she continues to leave out though, and she's been called on it before, is the phrase "in effect" which is what the ellipsis at the beginning obscures. She can't avoid "serving the interests of" although it's only a matter of time before she edits this into:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military forceserving the interestsof the Democratic Party…”
--- and replaces that with another ellipsis.
What Foner is describing is a correlation that the poster dishonestly tries to portray as a composition, in order to arrive at her historically disprovable theory that "the Democrats started the Klan", which in turn serves her greater Composition Fallacy of polarization that this whole thread is about. It means that what the Klan does in ousting the Republican Party aligns with the interests of a rival party which like all parties wants control. It does not mean the latter therefore created the former.
For an analogy, if the St. Louis Cardinals defeat the Milwaukee Brewers, it serves the interests of the Chicago Cubs. It would be insane to then infer that "therefore the Chicago Cubs created the St. Louis Cardinals". Yet this is the stretch to which PC and her revisionist ilk would have us suspend reality.
IN that reality the Klan was actually created as an innocuous social club with no political (or racial) point by six ex-soldiers who were bored, none of which had any known political history or affiliation. That's why it has all the silly K-alliterations of "kleagles" and "klaverns" etc. You don't play around with alliteration if your purpose is as serious as terrorism. Obviously the klub's purpose didn't stay that way; it was taken over by "night rider/slave patrol" elements and general white supremacy elements, that had already existed in the South since at least the 18th century long before a United States or any political parties existed around them. These same elements simultaneously populated dozens of other similar regional groups like the White League and the Knights of the White Camellia and many others ---- this was a cultural artifact based on an extreme cultural conservatism, not a political machination. The Klan actually went out of its way to avoid political implications.
Here were two discrete dynamics; the white supremacy element resisting change to its supremacy through social control and/or terrorism; and the Democratic Party taking advantage of its resulting monopoly to aggregate its own power --- which is the one and only true function of poltical parties, ideologies being irrelevant inconveniences as demonstrated above.
It goes not unnoticed that the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifact of racism/white supremacy with a political party ---- seems to be the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifacts of FGM and "honor killing" with a religion. The same fallacy, employed to the same end--- spreading division through ignorance. Obviously they get a lot of practice.
And that's what this thread is here for --- to call out that dishonest argument for the divisive destruction it is.
See if you can answer the question in post 1876 and you might win the "nazi boi" prize...otherwise I will assume your reading skills are deficient
So, when did the terrorism against blacks in the South stop?
Oh, that's right, when Republicans took control of the South...
A fascinating bit of historical digression but one that completely avoided the issue ....waiting on your evidence showing the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south...until then, wipe the custard off your face.For today's lesson, a trip down Democrat Memory Lane...an anniversary of sorts:
Murder in Mississippi | American Experience - WGBH | PBS
Democrat handiwork.
Right wing handiwork. Time to own it.
Now watch me smash a custard pie in your kisser:
1. The KKK was formed for the Democrat Party to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
2. The Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill to come to the Senate.
3. On June 21, 1964 Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, three Americans, were slaughtered by the Democrat minions to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
As I said.....and proved, Democrat handiwork.
Proving you a liar was simply a bonus.
It's also cherrypicked bullshit that's been trotted out and shot down before, which is always .... messy.
The South culturally/ideologically has never been anywhere near the "left" or anything but "conservative". At the same time the same South was for 99 years after the Civil War staunchly Democratic Party in politics. These two facts are in no way contradictory; to try to use the latter to negate and even reverse the former is blatant dishonesty. And it depends on the cult-of-ignorance fallacy idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" or any political party, mean the same thing ideologically that they meant 150 years ago, which requires the self-delusion that such entities are somehow unaffected by changing times and their own changing self-interests and stand ideologically fixed and unmoving --- which is absurd.
Examples of why the South being at once conservative and Democratic for 99 years abound.
This self-strangling theory also purports to presume that people join or work with political parties for ideological reasons only rather than practical ones, which again ignores history. The (white) South went Democratic for 99 years not out of any ideological affinity with that party --- see the abundant conflicts as noted above ---but out of sheer historical emotion, the idea of associating with the Party of Lincoln, the man who had defeated and humiliated it, being unthinkable. "Republican" was in effect a dirty word; the Republican Party did not exist in the South before or during the War (Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot in the South), and therefore its only association FOR the (white) South was as an invading/occupying army that wanted to dictate its fate from the North.
- George Wallace (Democrat) constantly raining against "Liberals" and then running against the Democrat candidate with a third party.
- Zell Miller (Democrat to this day) railing against John Kerry at the other party's convention
- Strom Thurmond and a coterie of fellow-traveler racists walking out of the party convention in 1948 and then running against the Democrat candidate (and nearly succeeding)
- Even back as far as 1860, Southern Democrats pulling the same thing as 1948, disrupting the convention, running its own candidate and pushing the Democratic nominee down to fourth place in the election
THAT is why the white South resisted the existence of "Republican" in ways as mild as shunning its candidates at the polls and as extreme as the terrorism committed by the Klan and literally dozens of other similar vigilante groups of various degrees of organization. These were insurgents resisting what they viewed as an overreaching federal government occupation --- nothing to do with political party ideologies, which indeed that same white South had already rejected in 1860.
The poster (PC) once again misquotes the historian's line, to wit:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
--- I see she's even descended to placing the term "liberal" in front of his name as a way to try to lend the misquote "credence".
--- the part she continues to leave out though, and she's been called on it before, is the phrase "in effect" which is what the ellipsis at the beginning obscures. She can't avoid "serving the interests of" although it's only a matter of time before she edits this into:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military forceserving the interestsof the Democratic Party…”
--- and replaces that with another ellipsis.
What Foner is describing is a correlation that the poster dishonestly tries to portray as a composition, in order to arrive at her historically disprovable theory that "the Democrats started the Klan", which in turn serves her greater Composition Fallacy of polarization that this whole thread is about. It means that what the Klan does in ousting the Republican Party aligns with the interests of a rival party which like all parties wants control. It does not mean the latter therefore created the former.
For an analogy, if the St. Louis Cardinals defeat the Milwaukee Brewers, it serves the interests of the Chicago Cubs. It would be insane to then infer that "therefore the Chicago Cubs created the St. Louis Cardinals". Yet this is the stretch to which PC and her revisionist ilk would have us suspend reality.
IN that reality the Klan was actually created as an innocuous social club with no political (or racial) point by six ex-soldiers who were bored, none of which had any known political history or affiliation. That's why it has all the silly K-alliterations of "kleagles" and "klaverns" etc. You don't play around with alliteration if your purpose is as serious as terrorism. Obviously the klub's purpose didn't stay that way; it was taken over by "night rider/slave patrol" elements and general white supremacy elements, that had already existed in the South since at least the 18th century long before a United States or any political parties existed around them. These same elements simultaneously populated dozens of other similar regional groups like the White League and the Knights of the White Camellia and many others ---- this was a cultural artifact based on an extreme cultural conservatism, not a political machination. The Klan actually went out of its way to avoid political implications.
Here were two discrete dynamics; the white supremacy element resisting change to its supremacy through social control and/or terrorism; and the Democratic Party taking advantage of its resulting monopoly to aggregate its own power --- which is the one and only true function of poltical parties, ideologies being irrelevant inconveniences as demonstrated above.
It goes not unnoticed that the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifact of racism/white supremacy with a political party ---- seems to be the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifacts of FGM and "honor killing" with a religion. The same fallacy, employed to the same end--- spreading division through ignorance. Obviously they get a lot of practice.
And that's what this thread is here for --- to call out that dishonest argument for the divisive destruction it is.
Really heartening to see how much the truth hurts you.
Made my day.
Now.....if only a liars pants actually burst into flames.
That is a great post and good history lesson!A fascinating bit of historical digression but one that completely avoided the issue ....waiting on your evidence showing the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south...until then, wipe the custard off your face.
For today's lesson, a trip down Democrat Memory Lane...an anniversary of sorts:
Murder in Mississippi | American Experience - WGBH | PBS
Democrat handiwork.
Right wing handiwork. Time to own it.
Now watch me smash a custard pie in your kisser:
1. The KKK was formed for the Democrat Party to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
2. The Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill to come to the Senate.
3. On June 21, 1964 Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, three Americans, were slaughtered by the Democrat minions to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
As I said.....and proved, Democrat handiwork.
Proving you a liar was simply a bonus.
It's also cherrypicked bullshit that's been trotted out and shot down before, which is always .... messy.
The South culturally/ideologically has never been anywhere near the "left" or anything but "conservative". At the same time the same South was for 99 years after the Civil War staunchly Democratic Party in politics. These two facts are in no way contradictory; to try to use the latter to negate and even reverse the former is blatant dishonesty. And it depends on the cult-of-ignorance fallacy idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" or any political party, mean the same thing ideologically that they meant 150 years ago, which requires the self-delusion that such entities are somehow unaffected by changing times and their own changing self-interests and stand ideologically fixed and unmoving --- which is absurd.
Examples of why the South being at once conservative and Democratic for 99 years abound.
This self-strangling theory also purports to presume that people join or work with political parties for ideological reasons only rather than practical ones, which again ignores history. The (white) South went Democratic for 99 years not out of any ideological affinity with that party --- see the abundant conflicts as noted above ---but out of sheer historical emotion, the idea of associating with the Party of Lincoln, the man who had defeated and humiliated it, being unthinkable. "Republican" was in effect a dirty word; the Republican Party did not exist in the South before or during the War (Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot in the South), and therefore its only association FOR the (white) South was as an invading/occupying army that wanted to dictate its fate from the North. Therefore, the Democratic Party was literally the only alternative.
- George Wallace (Democrat) constantly raining against "Liberals" and then running against the Democrat candidate with a third party.
- Zell Miller (Democrat to this day) railing against John Kerry at the other party's convention
- Strom Thurmond and a coterie of fellow-traveler racists walking out of the party convention in 1948 and then running against the Democrat candidate (and nearly succeeding)
- Even back as far as 1860, Southern Democrats pulling the same thing as 1948, disrupting the convention, running its own candidate and pushing the Democratic nominee down to fourth place in the election
THAT is why the white South resisted the existence of "Republican" in ways as mild as shunning its candidates at the polls and as extreme as the terrorism committed by the Klan and literally dozens of other similar vigilante groups of various degrees of organization. These were insurgents resisting what they viewed as an overreaching federal government occupation --- nothing to do with political party ideologies, which indeed that same white South had already rejected in 1860.
The poster (PC) once again misquotes the historian's line, to wit:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
--- I see she's even descended to placing the term "liberal" in front of his name as a way to try to lend the misquote "credence".
--- the part she continues to leave out though, and she's been called on it before, is the phrase "in effect" which is what the ellipsis at the beginning obscures. She can't avoid "serving the interests of" although it's only a matter of time before she edits this into:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military forceserving the interestsof the Democratic Party…”
--- and replaces that with another ellipsis.
What Foner is describing is a correlation that the poster dishonestly tries to portray as a composition, in order to arrive at her historically disprovable theory that "the Democrats started the Klan", which in turn serves her greater Composition Fallacy of polarization that this whole thread is about. It means that what the Klan does in ousting the Republican Party aligns with the interests of a rival party which like all parties wants control. It does not mean the latter therefore created the former.
For an analogy, if the St. Louis Cardinals defeat the Milwaukee Brewers, it serves the interests of the Chicago Cubs. It would be insane to then infer that "therefore the Chicago Cubs created the St. Louis Cardinals". Yet this is the stretch to which PC and her revisionist ilk would have us suspend reality.
IN that reality the Klan was actually created as an innocuous social club with no political (or racial) point by six ex-soldiers who were bored, none of which had any known political history or affiliation. That's why it has all the silly K-alliterations of "kleagles" and "klaverns" etc. You don't play around with alliteration if your purpose is as serious as terrorism. Obviously the klub's purpose didn't stay that way; it was taken over by "night rider/slave patrol" elements and general white supremacy elements, that had already existed in the South since at least the 18th century long before a United States or any political parties existed around them. These same elements simultaneously populated dozens of other similar regional groups like the White League and the Knights of the White Camellia and many others ---- this was a cultural artifact based on an extreme cultural conservatism, not a political machination. The Klan actually went out of its way to avoid political implications.
Here were two discrete dynamics; the white supremacy element resisting change to its supremacy through social control and/or terrorism; and the Democratic Party taking advantage of its resulting monopoly to aggregate its own power --- which is the one and only true function of poltical parties, ideologies being irrelevant inconveniences as demonstrated above.
It goes not unnoticed that the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifact of racism/white supremacy with a political party ---- seems to be the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifacts of FGM and "honor killing" with a religion. The same fallacy, employed to the same end--- spreading division through ignorance. Obviously they get a lot of practice.
And that's what this thread is here for --- to call out that dishonest argument for the divisive destruction it is.
There is a fire extinguisher to your left.A fascinating bit of historical digression but one that completely avoided the issue ....waiting on your evidence showing the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south...until then, wipe the custard off your face.For today's lesson, a trip down Democrat Memory Lane...an anniversary of sorts:
Murder in Mississippi | American Experience - WGBH | PBS
Democrat handiwork.
Right wing handiwork. Time to own it.
Now watch me smash a custard pie in your kisser:
1. The KKK was formed for the Democrat Party to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
2. The Democrats blocked every anti-lynching bill to come to the Senate.
3. On June 21, 1964 Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner, three Americans, were slaughtered by the Democrat minions to preserve slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
As I said.....and proved, Democrat handiwork.
Proving you a liar was simply a bonus.
It's also cherrypicked bullshit that's been trotted out and shot down before, which is always .... messy.
The South culturally/ideologically has never been anywhere near the "left" or anything but "conservative". At the same time the same South was for 99 years after the Civil War staunchly Democratic Party in politics. These two facts are in no way contradictory; to try to use the latter to negate and even reverse the former is blatant dishonesty. And it depends on the cult-of-ignorance fallacy idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" or any political party, mean the same thing ideologically that they meant 150 years ago, which requires the self-delusion that such entities are somehow unaffected by changing times and their own changing self-interests and stand ideologically fixed and unmoving --- which is absurd.
Examples of why the South being at once conservative and Democratic for 99 years abound.
This self-strangling theory also purports to presume that people join or work with political parties for ideological reasons only rather than practical ones, which again ignores history. The (white) South went Democratic for 99 years not out of any ideological affinity with that party --- see the abundant conflicts as noted above ---but out of sheer historical emotion, the idea of associating with the Party of Lincoln, the man who had defeated and humiliated it, being unthinkable. "Republican" was in effect a dirty word; the Republican Party did not exist in the South before or during the War (Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot in the South), and therefore its only association FOR the (white) South was as an invading/occupying army that wanted to dictate its fate from the North.
- George Wallace (Democrat) constantly raining against "Liberals" and then running against the Democrat candidate with a third party.
- Zell Miller (Democrat to this day) railing against John Kerry at the other party's convention
- Strom Thurmond and a coterie of fellow-traveler racists walking out of the party convention in 1948 and then running against the Democrat candidate (and nearly succeeding)
- Even back as far as 1860, Southern Democrats pulling the same thing as 1948, disrupting the convention, running its own candidate and pushing the Democratic nominee down to fourth place in the election
THAT is why the white South resisted the existence of "Republican" in ways as mild as shunning its candidates at the polls and as extreme as the terrorism committed by the Klan and literally dozens of other similar vigilante groups of various degrees of organization. These were insurgents resisting what they viewed as an overreaching federal government occupation --- nothing to do with political party ideologies, which indeed that same white South had already rejected in 1860.
The poster (PC) once again misquotes the historian's line, to wit:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
--- I see she's even descended to placing the term "liberal" in front of his name as a way to try to lend the misquote "credence".
--- the part she continues to leave out though, and she's been called on it before, is the phrase "in effect" which is what the ellipsis at the beginning obscures. She can't avoid "serving the interests of" although it's only a matter of time before she edits this into:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military forceserving the interestsof the Democratic Party…”
--- and replaces that with another ellipsis.
What Foner is describing is a correlation that the poster dishonestly tries to portray as a composition, in order to arrive at her historically disprovable theory that "the Democrats started the Klan", which in turn serves her greater Composition Fallacy of polarization that this whole thread is about. It means that what the Klan does in ousting the Republican Party aligns with the interests of a rival party which like all parties wants control. It does not mean the latter therefore created the former.
For an analogy, if the St. Louis Cardinals defeat the Milwaukee Brewers, it serves the interests of the Chicago Cubs. It would be insane to then infer that "therefore the Chicago Cubs created the St. Louis Cardinals". Yet this is the stretch to which PC and her revisionist ilk would have us suspend reality.
IN that reality the Klan was actually created as an innocuous social club with no political (or racial) point by six ex-soldiers who were bored, none of which had any known political history or affiliation. That's why it has all the silly K-alliterations of "kleagles" and "klaverns" etc. You don't play around with alliteration if your purpose is as serious as terrorism. Obviously the klub's purpose didn't stay that way; it was taken over by "night rider/slave patrol" elements and general white supremacy elements, that had already existed in the South since at least the 18th century long before a United States or any political parties existed around them. These same elements simultaneously populated dozens of other similar regional groups like the White League and the Knights of the White Camellia and many others ---- this was a cultural artifact based on an extreme cultural conservatism, not a political machination. The Klan actually went out of its way to avoid political implications.
Here were two discrete dynamics; the white supremacy element resisting change to its supremacy through social control and/or terrorism; and the Democratic Party taking advantage of its resulting monopoly to aggregate its own power --- which is the one and only true function of poltical parties, ideologies being irrelevant inconveniences as demonstrated above.
It goes not unnoticed that the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifact of racism/white supremacy with a political party ---- seems to be the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifacts of FGM and "honor killing" with a religion. The same fallacy, employed to the same end--- spreading division through ignorance. Obviously they get a lot of practice.
And that's what this thread is here for --- to call out that dishonest argument for the divisive destruction it is.
Really heartening to see how much the truth hurts you.
Made my day.
Now.....if only a liars pants actually burst into flames.
Once you start invoking Nazi comparisons to modern american political figures or politics you've lost credability if not the argument. People do the use it to talk about economics. They use to invoke genocidal ideologies as you well know.See if you can answer the question in post 1876 and you might win the "nazi boi" prize...otherwise I will assume your reading skills are deficient
Should we not be able to evoke the term "Nazi"?
We should be able to do so when it applies. Perhaps what both sides are trying to do is make it socially unacceptable to ever use the term which is unacceptable to me.
If you use it, then back it up, which I have done in the past.
For example, there are many similarities to Nazi thought and Progressive thought. Both seek to centralize government and create two huge pots of cash. One that goes to the military and the other to the welfare state. For you see, Hitler was terrified of a war weary populace that might face a decreased standard of living because it resulted in internal uprisings in Germany during WW1. The Nazi regime also created huge debt and were avid environmentalists and animal rights advocates. So when I see these disturbing similarities I'm to just be quiet? I don't think so.
But Obama did lie. In fact, he lied about a great many things. He lied saying everyone's health premiums would go down. He lied about being able to keep your same health care plan and doctor. He lied about it not being a tax, when in fact, it ended up being the largest tax on the middle class in US history.
So are we now not allowed to call a spade a spade? Are you now comparing telling the truth in saying he lied to wishing people died in a terrorist attack?
The left surely has lost its mind.
There is a fire extinguisher to your left.A fascinating bit of historical digression but one that completely avoided the issue ....waiting on your evidence showing the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south...until then, wipe the custard off your face.
It's also cherrypicked bullshit that's been trotted out and shot down before, which is always .... messy.
The South culturally/ideologically has never been anywhere near the "left" or anything but "conservative". At the same time the same South was for 99 years after the Civil War staunchly Democratic Party in politics. These two facts are in no way contradictory; to try to use the latter to negate and even reverse the former is blatant dishonesty. And it depends on the cult-of-ignorance fallacy idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" or any political party, mean the same thing ideologically that they meant 150 years ago, which requires the self-delusion that such entities are somehow unaffected by changing times and their own changing self-interests and stand ideologically fixed and unmoving --- which is absurd.
Examples of why the South being at once conservative and Democratic for 99 years abound.
This self-strangling theory also purports to presume that people join or work with political parties for ideological reasons only rather than practical ones, which again ignores history. The (white) South went Democratic for 99 years not out of any ideological affinity with that party --- see the abundant conflicts as noted above ---but out of sheer historical emotion, the idea of associating with the Party of Lincoln, the man who had defeated and humiliated it, being unthinkable. "Republican" was in effect a dirty word; the Republican Party did not exist in the South before or during the War (Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot in the South), and therefore its only association FOR the (white) South was as an invading/occupying army that wanted to dictate its fate from the North.
- George Wallace (Democrat) constantly raining against "Liberals" and then running against the Democrat candidate with a third party.
- Zell Miller (Democrat to this day) railing against John Kerry at the other party's convention
- Strom Thurmond and a coterie of fellow-traveler racists walking out of the party convention in 1948 and then running against the Democrat candidate (and nearly succeeding)
- Even back as far as 1860, Southern Democrats pulling the same thing as 1948, disrupting the convention, running its own candidate and pushing the Democratic nominee down to fourth place in the election
THAT is why the white South resisted the existence of "Republican" in ways as mild as shunning its candidates at the polls and as extreme as the terrorism committed by the Klan and literally dozens of other similar vigilante groups of various degrees of organization. These were insurgents resisting what they viewed as an overreaching federal government occupation --- nothing to do with political party ideologies, which indeed that same white South had already rejected in 1860.
The poster (PC) once again misquotes the historian's line, to wit:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
--- I see she's even descended to placing the term "liberal" in front of his name as a way to try to lend the misquote "credence".
--- the part she continues to leave out though, and she's been called on it before, is the phrase "in effect" which is what the ellipsis at the beginning obscures. She can't avoid "serving the interests of" although it's only a matter of time before she edits this into:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military forceserving the interestsof the Democratic Party…”
--- and replaces that with another ellipsis.
What Foner is describing is a correlation that the poster dishonestly tries to portray as a composition, in order to arrive at her historically disprovable theory that "the Democrats started the Klan", which in turn serves her greater Composition Fallacy of polarization that this whole thread is about. It means that what the Klan does in ousting the Republican Party aligns with the interests of a rival party which like all parties wants control. It does not mean the latter therefore created the former.
For an analogy, if the St. Louis Cardinals defeat the Milwaukee Brewers, it serves the interests of the Chicago Cubs. It would be insane to then infer that "therefore the Chicago Cubs created the St. Louis Cardinals". Yet this is the stretch to which PC and her revisionist ilk would have us suspend reality.
IN that reality the Klan was actually created as an innocuous social club with no political (or racial) point by six ex-soldiers who were bored, none of which had any known political history or affiliation. That's why it has all the silly K-alliterations of "kleagles" and "klaverns" etc. You don't play around with alliteration if your purpose is as serious as terrorism. Obviously the klub's purpose didn't stay that way; it was taken over by "night rider/slave patrol" elements and general white supremacy elements, that had already existed in the South since at least the 18th century long before a United States or any political parties existed around them. These same elements simultaneously populated dozens of other similar regional groups like the White League and the Knights of the White Camellia and many others ---- this was a cultural artifact based on an extreme cultural conservatism, not a political machination. The Klan actually went out of its way to avoid political implications.
Here were two discrete dynamics; the white supremacy element resisting change to its supremacy through social control and/or terrorism; and the Democratic Party taking advantage of its resulting monopoly to aggregate its own power --- which is the one and only true function of poltical parties, ideologies being irrelevant inconveniences as demonstrated above.
It goes not unnoticed that the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifact of racism/white supremacy with a political party ---- seems to be the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifacts of FGM and "honor killing" with a religion. The same fallacy, employed to the same end--- spreading division through ignorance. Obviously they get a lot of practice.
And that's what this thread is here for --- to call out that dishonest argument for the divisive destruction it is.
Really heartening to see how much the truth hurts you.
Made my day.
Now.....if only a liars pants actually burst into flames.
A fascinating bit of historical digression but one that completely avoided the issue ....waiting on your evidence showing the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south...until then, wipe the custard off your face.
It's also cherrypicked bullshit that's been trotted out and shot down before, which is always .... messy.
The South culturally/ideologically has never been anywhere near the "left" or anything but "conservative". At the same time the same South was for 99 years after the Civil War staunchly Democratic Party in politics. These two facts are in no way contradictory; to try to use the latter to negate and even reverse the former is blatant dishonesty. And it depends on the cult-of-ignorance fallacy idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" or any political party, mean the same thing ideologically that they meant 150 years ago, which requires the self-delusion that such entities are somehow unaffected by changing times and their own changing self-interests and stand ideologically fixed and unmoving --- which is absurd.
Examples of why the South being at once conservative and Democratic for 99 years abound.
This self-strangling theory also purports to presume that people join or work with political parties for ideological reasons only rather than practical ones, which again ignores history. The (white) South went Democratic for 99 years not out of any ideological affinity with that party --- see the abundant conflicts as noted above ---but out of sheer historical emotion, the idea of associating with the Party of Lincoln, the man who had defeated and humiliated it, being unthinkable. "Republican" was in effect a dirty word; the Republican Party did not exist in the South before or during the War (Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot in the South), and therefore its only association FOR the (white) South was as an invading/occupying army that wanted to dictate its fate from the North.
- George Wallace (Democrat) constantly raining against "Liberals" and then running against the Democrat candidate with a third party.
- Zell Miller (Democrat to this day) railing against John Kerry at the other party's convention
- Strom Thurmond and a coterie of fellow-traveler racists walking out of the party convention in 1948 and then running against the Democrat candidate (and nearly succeeding)
- Even back as far as 1860, Southern Democrats pulling the same thing as 1948, disrupting the convention, running its own candidate and pushing the Democratic nominee down to fourth place in the election
THAT is why the white South resisted the existence of "Republican" in ways as mild as shunning its candidates at the polls and as extreme as the terrorism committed by the Klan and literally dozens of other similar vigilante groups of various degrees of organization. These were insurgents resisting what they viewed as an overreaching federal government occupation --- nothing to do with political party ideologies, which indeed that same white South had already rejected in 1860.
The poster (PC) once again misquotes the historian's line, to wit:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
--- I see she's even descended to placing the term "liberal" in front of his name as a way to try to lend the misquote "credence".
--- the part she continues to leave out though, and she's been called on it before, is the phrase "in effect" which is what the ellipsis at the beginning obscures. She can't avoid "serving the interests of" although it's only a matter of time before she edits this into:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military forceserving the interestsof the Democratic Party…”
--- and replaces that with another ellipsis.
What Foner is describing is a correlation that the poster dishonestly tries to portray as a composition, in order to arrive at her historically disprovable theory that "the Democrats started the Klan", which in turn serves her greater Composition Fallacy of polarization that this whole thread is about. It means that what the Klan does in ousting the Republican Party aligns with the interests of a rival party which like all parties wants control. It does not mean the latter therefore created the former.
For an analogy, if the St. Louis Cardinals defeat the Milwaukee Brewers, it serves the interests of the Chicago Cubs. It would be insane to then infer that "therefore the Chicago Cubs created the St. Louis Cardinals". Yet this is the stretch to which PC and her revisionist ilk would have us suspend reality.
IN that reality the Klan was actually created as an innocuous social club with no political (or racial) point by six ex-soldiers who were bored, none of which had any known political history or affiliation. That's why it has all the silly K-alliterations of "kleagles" and "klaverns" etc. You don't play around with alliteration if your purpose is as serious as terrorism. Obviously the klub's purpose didn't stay that way; it was taken over by "night rider/slave patrol" elements and general white supremacy elements, that had already existed in the South since at least the 18th century long before a United States or any political parties existed around them. These same elements simultaneously populated dozens of other similar regional groups like the White League and the Knights of the White Camellia and many others ---- this was a cultural artifact based on an extreme cultural conservatism, not a political machination. The Klan actually went out of its way to avoid political implications.
Here were two discrete dynamics; the white supremacy element resisting change to its supremacy through social control and/or terrorism; and the Democratic Party taking advantage of its resulting monopoly to aggregate its own power --- which is the one and only true function of poltical parties, ideologies being irrelevant inconveniences as demonstrated above.
It goes not unnoticed that the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifact of racism/white supremacy with a political party ---- seems to be the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifacts of FGM and "honor killing" with a religion. The same fallacy, employed to the same end--- spreading division through ignorance. Obviously they get a lot of practice.
And that's what this thread is here for --- to call out that dishonest argument for the divisive destruction it is.
Really heartening to see how much the truth hurts you.
Made my day.
Now.....if only a liars pants actually burst into flames.
Aye, I knew you'd have no response. The vacuum. To quote Ross Perot, I hear a giant sucking sound.
A fascinating bit of historical digression but one that completely avoided the issue ....waiting on your evidence showing the southern Dems were flaming leftists who magically became staunch rightwingers when the Republican took political control of the south...until then, wipe the custard off your face.
It's also cherrypicked bullshit that's been trotted out and shot down before, which is always .... messy.
The South culturally/ideologically has never been anywhere near the "left" or anything but "conservative". At the same time the same South was for 99 years after the Civil War staunchly Democratic Party in politics. These two facts are in no way contradictory; to try to use the latter to negate and even reverse the former is blatant dishonesty. And it depends on the cult-of-ignorance fallacy idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" or any political party, mean the same thing ideologically that they meant 150 years ago, which requires the self-delusion that such entities are somehow unaffected by changing times and their own changing self-interests and stand ideologically fixed and unmoving --- which is absurd.
Examples of why the South being at once conservative and Democratic for 99 years abound.
This self-strangling theory also purports to presume that people join or work with political parties for ideological reasons only rather than practical ones, which again ignores history. The (white) South went Democratic for 99 years not out of any ideological affinity with that party --- see the abundant conflicts as noted above ---but out of sheer historical emotion, the idea of associating with the Party of Lincoln, the man who had defeated and humiliated it, being unthinkable. "Republican" was in effect a dirty word; the Republican Party did not exist in the South before or during the War (Lincoln's name never appeared on a ballot in the South), and therefore its only association FOR the (white) South was as an invading/occupying army that wanted to dictate its fate from the North.
- George Wallace (Democrat) constantly raining against "Liberals" and then running against the Democrat candidate with a third party.
- Zell Miller (Democrat to this day) railing against John Kerry at the other party's convention
- Strom Thurmond and a coterie of fellow-traveler racists walking out of the party convention in 1948 and then running against the Democrat candidate (and nearly succeeding)
- Even back as far as 1860, Southern Democrats pulling the same thing as 1948, disrupting the convention, running its own candidate and pushing the Democratic nominee down to fourth place in the election
THAT is why the white South resisted the existence of "Republican" in ways as mild as shunning its candidates at the polls and as extreme as the terrorism committed by the Klan and literally dozens of other similar vigilante groups of various degrees of organization. These were insurgents resisting what they viewed as an overreaching federal government occupation --- nothing to do with political party ideologies, which indeed that same white South had already rejected in 1860.
The poster (PC) once again misquotes the historian's line, to wit:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
--- I see she's even descended to placing the term "liberal" in front of his name as a way to try to lend the misquote "credence".
--- the part she continues to leave out though, and she's been called on it before, is the phrase "in effect" which is what the ellipsis at the beginning obscures. She can't avoid "serving the interests of" although it's only a matter of time before she edits this into:
Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military forceserving the interestsof the Democratic Party…”
--- and replaces that with another ellipsis.
What Foner is describing is a correlation that the poster dishonestly tries to portray as a composition, in order to arrive at her historically disprovable theory that "the Democrats started the Klan", which in turn serves her greater Composition Fallacy of polarization that this whole thread is about. It means that what the Klan does in ousting the Republican Party aligns with the interests of a rival party which like all parties wants control. It does not mean the latter therefore created the former.
For an analogy, if the St. Louis Cardinals defeat the Milwaukee Brewers, it serves the interests of the Chicago Cubs. It would be insane to then infer that "therefore the Chicago Cubs created the St. Louis Cardinals". Yet this is the stretch to which PC and her revisionist ilk would have us suspend reality.
IN that reality the Klan was actually created as an innocuous social club with no political (or racial) point by six ex-soldiers who were bored, none of which had any known political history or affiliation. That's why it has all the silly K-alliterations of "kleagles" and "klaverns" etc. You don't play around with alliteration if your purpose is as serious as terrorism. Obviously the klub's purpose didn't stay that way; it was taken over by "night rider/slave patrol" elements and general white supremacy elements, that had already existed in the South since at least the 18th century long before a United States or any political parties existed around them. These same elements simultaneously populated dozens of other similar regional groups like the White League and the Knights of the White Camellia and many others ---- this was a cultural artifact based on an extreme cultural conservatism, not a political machination. The Klan actually went out of its way to avoid political implications.
Here were two discrete dynamics; the white supremacy element resisting change to its supremacy through social control and/or terrorism; and the Democratic Party taking advantage of its resulting monopoly to aggregate its own power --- which is the one and only true function of poltical parties, ideologies being irrelevant inconveniences as demonstrated above.
It goes not unnoticed that the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifact of racism/white supremacy with a political party ---- seems to be the same fallacy-crowd that wants to conflate the cultural artifacts of FGM and "honor killing" with a religion. The same fallacy, employed to the same end--- spreading division through ignorance. Obviously they get a lot of practice.
And that's what this thread is here for --- to call out that dishonest argument for the divisive destruction it is.
Really heartening to see how much the truth hurts you.
Made my day.
Now.....if only a liars pants actually burst into flames.
Aye, I knew you'd have no response. The vacuum. To quote Ross Perot, I hear a giant sucking sound.
I did respond....I pointed out that you're a liar.
