More on democrat racism...Bill Whittle..gun control and marriage licenses....

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit. He does not have what we could call an intimate relationship with accuracy. But he does have a nice smile, and for the gullible, that's all they need.

How about you itemize your objections so we can discuss?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

But you can't argue against the points, can you?

Sure you can. They're mostly history and don't really have much of a bearing on current politics. Also,as I said, FDR didn't start the depression.

But his policies prolonged the depression which was the point. It took war manufacturing (supply an demand capitalism -- not FDR socialism) to end it.

 

[Pogo]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit. He does not have what we could call an intimate relationship with accuracy. But he does have a nice smile, and for the gullible, that's all they need.

How about you itemize your objections so we can discuss?

Already did. Post 11, and 14.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit. He does not have what we could call an intimate relationship with accuracy. But he does have a nice smile, and for the gullible, that's all they need.

How about you itemize your objections so we can discuss?

Already did. Post 11, and 14.

My bad. Didn't see that post. However, you conveniently and questionably attribute no political affiliation to KKK founders. I think that's disingenuous when you consider the democrat-dominated legacy of the KKK. What's more, the anti-civil rights crew were mostly democrat and the democrat party has to this day capitalized on maintaining and relying on segregation of blacks.

 

[Pogo]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit. He does not have what we could call an intimate relationship with accuracy. But he does have a nice smile, and for the gullible, that's all they need.

How about you itemize your objections so we can discuss?

Already did. Post 11, and 14.

My bad. Didn't see that post. However, you conveniently and questionably attribute no political affiliation to KKK founders.

That's because no such political affiliation has ever been recorded. Politics had nothing to do with it -- it was a social club founded as a lark. That's what all the K-alliterations were about. And then in the second iteration in 1915, Simmons had no known political affiliation either.

The white South in 1865 was, if not struggling to simply stay alive, was about resisting what it saw as "interlopers", continuing the war and putting down its perceived "threat" of a newly freed black population with the temerity to compete for jobs and register to vote. To this end multiple vigilante groups, and individuals, did what insurgents do, and took over the KKK. But the founders were simply six young Confederate soldiers. That's a matter of record. I even supplied their names.

I think that's disingenuous when you consider the democrat-dominated legacy of the KKK.

No more than the association fallacy of putting the existence of a Southern vigilante group with the fact that the Republican Party, brand new at the time and being the party of Lincoln who vanquished and humiliated it, found no fans there. "The enemy of my enemy is a member of my political party" doesn't really work in the pages of history. The fact is, none of these various groups had a political affiliation, because what they were doing, in their minds, was fighting a civil war. And in the second iteration, fighting a social civil war not unlike this past week's angst over gay rights, against not just blacks but immigrants and Catholics and Jews and loose women. That's not politics; that's cultural.

Not to mention the various Republican KKK players already mentioned, not to mention the David Duke in the room and that whole ilk. This association fallacy is just that.

What's more, the anti-civil rights crew were mostly democrat and the democrat party has to this day capitalized on maintaining and relying on segregation of blacks.

Again, you're referring to a cultural movement that had everything to do with geography and nothing with political philosophies.

I'll post this yet again and give yet another opportunity to ignore what's in plain sight:

CRA '64 ... 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, 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.

Because it ain't about political parties. It never was. It was always about regional culture.
Political parties change with the wind. Cultures don't.

 

[2aguy]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit.

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

Dipshit.....at 2:16 he was referring to the fact that the democrat racist states were leaving the union before Lincoln was inaugurated....dipshit....

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit.

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860,

Dipshit.....Bill Whittle is correctly pointing out that the democrat racist states left the Union before Lincoln was Inaugurated President.......dipshit....

You say the Confederate officers who formed the kkk had no political affiliation...what a ******* crock of shit.....asshole. Do you think they were closet republicans?

The first grand wizard of the ku klux klan was Nathan Bedford Forrest, another Confederate Veteran......and Member of the racist democrat party......moron....

 

[2aguy]

FDR...raised taxes over 90% and the Great Depression was born.

Say what? The Great Depression was ongoing for three years before FDR took office.

Actually it was the depression of 1920....which only lasted a year because Coolidge cut taxes and government spending....he mentions later that FDR, facing another depression raised taxes, and increased government spending and created a depression that lasted till World War 2...the Great depression.....

 

[Pogo]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit.

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

Dipshit.....at 2:16 he was referring to the fact that the democrat racist states were leaving the union before Lincoln was inaugurated....dipshit....

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit.

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860,

Dipshit.....Bill Whittle is correctly pointing out that the democrat racist states left the Union before Lincoln was Inaugurated President.......dipshit....

You say the Confederate officers who formed the kkk had no political affiliation...what a ******* crock of shit.....asshole. Do you think they were closet republicans?

The first grand wizard of the ku klux klan was Nathan Bedford Forrest, another Confederate Veteran......and Member of the racist democrat party......moron....

Uhhh I'm afraid "do you think they were closet Republicans" isn't an argument. We have no information that they had any political affiliation at all. Go find some, and we'll go from there. But I've already researched this shit. Not everybody in the world has a political affiliation.

And Forrest wasn't a founder. He was sought out as a figurehead to give the organization "legitimacy". And he disbanded it less that two years later specifically because they were out of hand, although they ignored the order and continued ad hoc.

All of which I've posted before and is again a matter of historical record.

Dipshit.

 

[2aguy]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit. He does not have what we could call an intimate relationship with accuracy. But he does have a nice smile, and for the gullible, that's all they need.

How about you itemize your objections so we can discuss?

Already did. Post 11, and 14.

My bad. Didn't see that post. However, you conveniently and questionably attribute no political affiliation to KKK founders.

That's because no such political affiliation has ever been recorded. Politics had nothing to do with it -- it was a social club founded as a lark. That's what all the K-alliterations were about. And then in the second iteration in 1915, Simmons had no known political affiliation either.

The white South in 1865 was, if not struggling to simply stay alive, was about resisting what it saw as "interlopers", continuing the war and putting down its perceived "threat" of a newly freed black population with the temerity to compete for jobs and register to vote. To this end multiple vigilante groups, and individuals, did what insurgents do, and took over the KKK. But the founders were simply six young Confederate soldiers. That's a matter of record. I even supplied their names.

I think that's disingenuous when you consider the democrat-dominated legacy of the KKK.

No more than the association fallacy of putting the existence of a Southern vigilante group with the fact that the Republican Party, brand new at the time and being the party of Lincoln who vanquished and humiliated it, found no fans there. "The enemy of my enemy is a member of my political party" doesn't really work in the pages of history. The fact is, none of these various groups had a political affiliation, because what they were doing, in their minds, was fighting a civil war. And in the second iteration, fighting a social civil war not unlike this past week's angst over gay rights, against not just blacks but immigrants and Catholics and Jews and loose women. That's not politics; that's cultural.

Not to mention the various Republican KKK players already mentioned, not to mention the David Duke in the room and that whole ilk. This association fallacy is just that.

What's more, the anti-civil rights crew were mostly democrat and the democrat party has to this day capitalized on maintaining and relying on segregation of blacks.

Again, you're referring to a cultural movement that had everything to do with geography and nothing with political philosophies.

I'll post this yet again and give yet another opportunity to ignore what's in plain sight:

CRA '64 ... 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, 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.

Because it ain't about political parties. It never was. It was always about regional culture.
Political parties change with the wind. Cultures don't.

Yes...asshole....you forgot the first modern Civil Rights acts, 1957, and 1960.....which recieved majority Support from Republicans....you assholes focus on the Civil Rights act of 1964 in order to hide the fact that the democrats fought all the civil rights acts but by 1964 their leader...LBJ realized that no matter what they did, blacks were going to be voting and they couldn't stop that. So, LBJ realized they had to buy the black vote to keep political power.....and the lie of the parties switching sides needed to be created....

Why did some Republicans vote against the 1964 Civil Rights act but not the Civil Rights acts of 1957 and 1960, which you assholes always forget to mention.......because the 1964 Civil Rights act was seen to go too far in empoweing the federal government, and Libertarian leaning Republicans...who supported the rest of the bill didn't want to pass two parts...

1) Affirmative action....creating a new class of racial preferences where they were trying to end racial discrimination

2) public accomodation laws......they wanted the government desegregated, and open to all but forcing private property owners to bend to government mandates went too far.....and we see they were right...ask the bakers, pizza makers, and photographers about that...

so asshole.....try looking up the vote counts for the 1957 civil rights act and the 1960 civil rights act...asshole...

 

[2aguy]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit.

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

Dipshit.....at 2:16 he was referring to the fact that the democrat racist states were leaving the union before Lincoln was inaugurated....dipshit....

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit.

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860,

Dipshit.....Bill Whittle is correctly pointing out that the democrat racist states left the Union before Lincoln was Inaugurated President.......dipshit....

You say the Confederate officers who formed the kkk had no political affiliation...what a ******* crock of shit.....asshole. Do you think they were closet republicans?

The first grand wizard of the ku klux klan was Nathan Bedford Forrest, another Confederate Veteran......and Member of the racist democrat party......moron....

Uhhh I'm afraid "do you think they were closet Republicans" isn't an argument. We have no information that they had any political affiliation at all. Go find some, and we'll go from there. But I've already researched this shit. Not everybody in the world has a political affiliation.

And Forrest wasn't a founder. He was sought out as a figurehead to give the organization "legitimacy". And he disbanded it less that two years later specifically because they were out of hand, although they ignored the order and continued ad hoc.

All of which I've posted before and is again a matter of historical record.

Dipshit.

Yes...let's just forget that he was the first grand wizard of the kkk and he was a democrat...of course that has nothing to do with the rest of the racism of the democrat party...so let's try to whitewash that out of history...asshole....

 

[2aguy]

Here you go asshole...the vote count in the Senate for the 1957 Civil rights act....the ones you guys ignore so you can smear Republicans as racists.......by lying about the 1964 civil rights act....

The senate vote count for the 1957 civil rights act...

Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The bill passed the Housewith a vote of 285 to 126 (Republicans 167–19 for, Democrats 118–107 for)[4] and the Senate 72 to 18 (Republicans 43–0 for, Democrats 29–18 for).[5] President Eisenhower signed it on September 9, 1957.

Senate vote for the 1957 civil rights act...

HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. PASSED. -- GovTrack.us

House vote 1960 civil rights act....

HR 8601. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1960. APPROVAL BY THE HOUSE OF THE SENATE S AMENDMENTS. -- GovTrack.us

Senate vote for the 1960 civil rights act...

HR. 8601. PASSAGE OF AMENDED BILL. -- GovTrack.us

Look at those vote totals asshole then explain how all of a sudden 4 years later the Republicans turned into democrats and democrats into republicans...asshole.....

Some Republicans objected to the government over reach in the 1964 civil rights act, over and above ensuring equal rights.....moron....

 

[2aguy]

This is a brand new video by Bill Whittle on democrat racism......the interesting points he brings up this time....

The racist democrats created gun control to keep guns out of the hands of newly freed blacks....and they also created marriage licensing to keep blacks from marrying whites.......

He also points out that in the first depression we experienced. in 1920-21, Calvin Coolidge, a Republican President cut the tax rate from the high of 73% and cut government spending in half...and the depression shortly ended.......

FDR...raised taxes over 90% and the Great Depression was born.....

Historical facts seemed to not have a place in this video. Educated folks know who was president, when the Depression happened and also why.
Thanks to 2aguy, we see where he gets highly questionable facts, which leads to why he thinks the way he does.

You aren't that educated....Calvin Coolidge also faced a depression in 1920....FDR in the 30s.....one ended the depression in a year....FDR extended his depression through World War 2....

 

[2aguy]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

But you can't argue against the points, can you?

Sure you can. They're mostly history and don't really have much of a bearing on current politics. Also,as I said, FDR didn't start the depression.

He kept it going with his tax and government spending policies...

 

[2aguy]

Whittle Bill's whole schtick here depends on this cockamamie idea that political parties are some sort of fixed ideology that never changes and therefore anything associated with the other "team", even if it was in 1842, puts points up on some imaginary football scoreboard for his "team".

Which as a basis is complete unadulterated monkey poo, but the gullible suck it up like candy.

You assholes believe lie, trying to say that "Conservative" means the same thing in all times...thus trying to smear modern conservatives with the slave owning democrats.....asshole....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Bill sounds a Whittle crazy to me.

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit. He does not have what we could call an intimate relationship with accuracy. But he does have a nice smile, and for the gullible, that's all they need.

How about you itemize your objections so we can discuss?

Already did. Post 11, and 14.

My bad. Didn't see that post. However, you conveniently and questionably attribute no political affiliation to KKK founders.

That's because no such political affiliation has ever been recorded. Politics had nothing to do with it -- it was a social club founded as a lark. That's what all the K-alliterations were about. And then in the second iteration in 1915, Simmons had no known political affiliation either.

The white South in 1865 was, if not struggling to simply stay alive, was about resisting what it saw as "interlopers", continuing the war and putting down its perceived "threat" of a newly freed black population with the temerity to compete for jobs and register to vote. To this end multiple vigilante groups, and individuals, did what insurgents do, and took over the KKK. But the founders were simply six young Confederate soldiers. That's a matter of record. I even supplied their names.

I think that's disingenuous when you consider the democrat-dominated legacy of the KKK.

No more than the association fallacy of putting the existence of a Southern vigilante group with the fact that the Republican Party, brand new at the time and being the party of Lincoln who vanquished and humiliated it, found no fans there. "The enemy of my enemy is a member of my political party" doesn't really work in the pages of history. The fact is, none of these various groups had a political affiliation, because what they were doing, in their minds, was fighting a civil war. And in the second iteration, fighting a social civil war not unlike this past week's angst over gay rights, against not just blacks but immigrants and Catholics and Jews and loose women. That's not politics; that's cultural.

Not to mention the various Republican KKK players already mentioned, not to mention the David Duke in the room and that whole ilk. This association fallacy is just that.

What's more, the anti-civil rights crew were mostly democrat and the democrat party has to this day capitalized on maintaining and relying on segregation of blacks.

Again, you're referring to a cultural movement that had everything to do with geography and nothing with political philosophies.

I'll post this yet again and give yet another opportunity to ignore what's in plain sight:

CRA '64 ... 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, 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.

Because it ain't about political parties. It never was. It was always about regional culture.
Political parties change with the wind. Cultures don't.

I totally agree that it is/was regional but voting is still political. KKK was democrat whether it was a real influential element or not. We have virulent anti-black racists in pockets of MD who vote lockstep democrat.

 

[Pogo]

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit. He does not have what we could call an intimate relationship with accuracy. But he does have a nice smile, and for the gullible, that's all they need.

How about you itemize your objections so we can discuss?

Already did. Post 11, and 14.

My bad. Didn't see that post. However, you conveniently and questionably attribute no political affiliation to KKK founders.

That's because no such political affiliation has ever been recorded. Politics had nothing to do with it -- it was a social club founded as a lark. That's what all the K-alliterations were about. And then in the second iteration in 1915, Simmons had no known political affiliation either.

The white South in 1865 was, if not struggling to simply stay alive, was about resisting what it saw as "interlopers", continuing the war and putting down its perceived "threat" of a newly freed black population with the temerity to compete for jobs and register to vote. To this end multiple vigilante groups, and individuals, did what insurgents do, and took over the KKK. But the founders were simply six young Confederate soldiers. That's a matter of record. I even supplied their names.

I think that's disingenuous when you consider the democrat-dominated legacy of the KKK.

No more than the association fallacy of putting the existence of a Southern vigilante group with the fact that the Republican Party, brand new at the time and being the party of Lincoln who vanquished and humiliated it, found no fans there. "The enemy of my enemy is a member of my political party" doesn't really work in the pages of history. The fact is, none of these various groups had a political affiliation, because what they were doing, in their minds, was fighting a civil war. And in the second iteration, fighting a social civil war not unlike this past week's angst over gay rights, against not just blacks but immigrants and Catholics and Jews and loose women. That's not politics; that's cultural.

Not to mention the various Republican KKK players already mentioned, not to mention the David Duke in the room and that whole ilk. This association fallacy is just that.

What's more, the anti-civil rights crew were mostly democrat and the democrat party has to this day capitalized on maintaining and relying on segregation of blacks.

Again, you're referring to a cultural movement that had everything to do with geography and nothing with political philosophies.

I'll post this yet again and give yet another opportunity to ignore what's in plain sight:

CRA '64 ... 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, 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.

Because it ain't about political parties. It never was. It was always about regional culture.
Political parties change with the wind. Cultures don't.

I totally agree that it is/was regional but voting is still political. KKK was democrat whether it was a real influential element or not. We have virulent anti-black racists in pockets of MD who vote lockstep democrat.

No, I'm afraid it wasn't "Democrat" by nature, any more than Southern postmen or railway workers or guitar players were "Democrat" by nature. And no more than any of them, including the KKK, are no "Republican" by nature.

 

[Pogo]

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit.

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

Dipshit.....at 2:16 he was referring to the fact that the democrat racist states were leaving the union before Lincoln was inaugurated....dipshit....

He is. Whittle Bill is the kindly face the Revisionistas use to float historical myth-turds in the toilet bowl of discourse. Pissyante linked one the other day. I only got halfway though the video dissecting the historically blatantly inaccurate bullshit.

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860,

Dipshit.....Bill Whittle is correctly pointing out that the democrat racist states left the Union before Lincoln was Inaugurated President.......dipshit....

You say the Confederate officers who formed the kkk had no political affiliation...what a ******* crock of shit.....asshole. Do you think they were closet republicans?

The first grand wizard of the ku klux klan was Nathan Bedford Forrest, another Confederate Veteran......and Member of the racist democrat party......moron....

Uhhh I'm afraid "do you think they were closet Republicans" isn't an argument. We have no information that they had any political affiliation at all. Go find some, and we'll go from there. But I've already researched this shit. Not everybody in the world has a political affiliation.

And Forrest wasn't a founder. He was sought out as a figurehead to give the organization "legitimacy". And he disbanded it less that two years later specifically because they were out of hand, although they ignored the order and continued ad hoc.

All of which I've posted before and is again a matter of historical record.

Dipshit.

Yes...let's just forget that he was the first grand wizard of the kkk and he was a democrat...of course that has nothing to do with the rest of the racism of the democrat party...so let's try to whitewash that out of history...asshole....

He was not a founder. He was a name that they tried to use for legitimacy based on his war record. And he disavowed the association, even denying later that he had ever been part of it.

Look, I get that you wish this all would have happened so that your thread wouldn't be a crock. But the fact remains, if you want certain things to have happened in the 1860s, you have to actually DO them in the 1860s. You don't get to rewrite history 150 years later because you signed up with an internet message board. Reality doesn't work that way,

 

[2aguy]

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

Dipshit.....at 2:16 he was referring to the fact that the democrat racist states were leaving the union before Lincoln was inaugurated....dipshit....

Translation of your post: Oh crap....the racist, democrat lies are being confronted and exposed.....how do we stop it......

**** you.

On closer inspection that IS the same video Pissyante linked the other day -- apparently he's as gullible as you are.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860, which is absolute and easily disprovable horseshit. In fact the Democratic Party's candidate won exactly the same number of Southern electoral votes Lincoln did --- ZERO. And the Confederacy was instituted AFTER the 1860 election. That's a simple matter of historical fact.

Then at 5:10 he's off the rails again claiming another easily disprovable horse turd, that the DP "founded the KKK". Which is more bullshit.

As we in fact know, the KKK was formed (12/24/1865) by Captain John C. Lester, Capt John B. Kennedy, Frank O. McCord, Calvin E. Jones, Richard R. Reed and James R. Crowe - six Confederate war vets with no political affiliation. That Klan was extinguished by 1880 and the revival Klan was put together by William J. Simmons (1915), an Atlanta salesman, also with no known political affiliation.

A few years later Simmons hired some PR people to spread the disease (which generates income) who got the KKK into politics for the first time, electing a Republican governor in Indiana, a Republican governor AND Senator in Colorado, Republican city council in Anaheim and a Republican mayor in Portland Oregon, among others. In other words the KKK, when it dabbled in politics at all, used whatever political party worked at the time, and worked against whatever party opposed it -- as it did when it got a governor removed (Walton, D-OK) for trying to drive the Klan out after the Tulsa Race Riots, and as it did disrupting the party convention in 1924 to keep Oscar Underwood (D-AL) from being nominated for denouncing the Klan.

Now if such a group were a political party's device, why would it be denouncing and driving out its own candidates? Why would such device be working to elect Republicans over its own people?

Whittle Bill's full of shit, and easily demonstrably so.

That's as far as I got on his bullshit video. But I'm sure the second half of it is equally entertaining for a fallacy hunter.

Depending on YouTube for a history lesson.... Gullible's Travels.

As I said I only got halfway through the video but it's complete bullshit. Whittle Bill (at 2:42) imagines the Democratic Party actually keeping Lincoln off the ballot and forming the Confederacy BEFORE the election of 1860,

Dipshit.....Bill Whittle is correctly pointing out that the democrat racist states left the Union before Lincoln was Inaugurated President.......dipshit....

You say the Confederate officers who formed the kkk had no political affiliation...what a ******* crock of shit.....asshole. Do you think they were closet republicans?

The first grand wizard of the ku klux klan was Nathan Bedford Forrest, another Confederate Veteran......and Member of the racist democrat party......moron....

Uhhh I'm afraid "do you think they were closet Republicans" isn't an argument. We have no information that they had any political affiliation at all. Go find some, and we'll go from there. But I've already researched this shit. Not everybody in the world has a political affiliation.

And Forrest wasn't a founder. He was sought out as a figurehead to give the organization "legitimacy". And he disbanded it less that two years later specifically because they were out of hand, although they ignored the order and continued ad hoc.

All of which I've posted before and is again a matter of historical record.

Dipshit.

Yes...let's just forget that he was the first grand wizard of the kkk and he was a democrat...of course that has nothing to do with the rest of the racism of the democrat party...so let's try to whitewash that out of history...asshole....

He was not a founder. He was a name that they tried to use for legitimacy based on his war record. And he disavowed the association, even denying later that he had ever been part of it.

Look, I get that you wish this all would have happened so that your thread wouldn't be a crock. But the fact remains, if you want certain things to have happened in the 1860s, you have to actually DO them in the 1860s. You don't get to rewrite history 150 years later because you signed up with an internet message board. Reality doesn't work that way,

Rewriting history is what the democrats have done to hide their racist past...that is why when we talk slavery, they never mention the democrat party, when they bitched about the confederate battle flag they blamed Republicans when it was a democrat flag placed on top of the capital by a democrat Governor Fritz Hollings......

telling the truth about the history the democrats have changed to hide their racist, slave owning past is not rewriting history...it is simply telling the truth........and you guys hate that....because it shows that you still belong to the racist democrat party...the party of slavery, kkk, jim crow, lynching, blocking the school house doors, both ways, poll taxes, literacy tests and all the vile racism the democrats created to keep power.....

 

[konradv]

The Great Depression was ongoing for three years before FDR took office.

Actually it was the depression of 1920....which only lasted a year because Coolidge cut taxes and government spending....he mentions later that FDR, facing another depression raised taxes, and increased government spending and created a depression that lasted till World War 2...the Great depression.....

Once again..., the Great Depression started in 1929, three years before FDR was elected. He had NOTHING to do with creating it.

 

[August West]

It`s always funny when these kluxxers tell us about the Dems and what they were 6 or 7 decades ago. Do they know what Current Events are? I wonder if any of these goons will claim that they were marching with MLK