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

[2aguy]

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.

Once again, he was talking about the depression in 1920 the one before the Great Depression......most Americans don't know about it because it is overshadowed by FDRs great depression...and because the lefty history professors don't want people to know that that depression was ended quickly.....by cutting tax rates, and Coolidge cut government spending by 50%....and the depression ended in about a year....

You know about FDRs depression because they raised tariffs before he was in office, wrecking the economy, then he came in and raised taxes.....raised taxes, over 90% and began spending money like there was no limit on stupid make word projects that made a depression...into the Great Depression.....lengthening and deepening the depression like never before.......

 

[Pogo]

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

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Which is absolute historical BULLSHIT. The first state to secede was South Carolina, December 20, 1860 -- the election of 1860 had been held on November 6 --- more than six weeks EARLIER. So nobody had "just left" at all.

As for why Lincoln's name wasn't on Southern ballots -- The Republican Party simply didn't print any for the South.

>> Ballots for the election of 1860 were not printed or approved by any government office or nonpartisan group. Instead, political parties were responsible for producing and distributing their own ballots for election day. << (here)
​

... With the exception of South Carolina, which had nobody on the ballot because it didn't have a popular vote, you picked up whichever ballot you preferred --- which was printed by that candidate's political party --- and deposited it in the ballot box. The Republican Party, the 14th political party organized in the United States and at the time all of six years old, printed no ballots in the South. It also printed no ballots in the prior election of 1856 and in the next one (1864) only supplied them in Kentucky, a border/Union state and Lincoln's own birth state. Again it printed no ballots in the South. By 1868 they did start doing so, although the election was a clusterfuck with all the fraud, intimidation and widespread disenfranchisement of voters there.

What Whittle Bill is doing here is implying that elections in 1860 worked the same way they do now, with a list of all candidates from which you make a choice. That's more of his bullshit, and the device of a liar out to commit rhetorical fraud.

 

[Pogo]

**** 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....

**** 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......

Number one, the state legislature put it there, not the governor; number two, it's not a "Democrat flag" -- political parties don't have flags. It was a battle flag originally.

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.....

You're all over the map trying to cover up and smokescreen the original false premise, which was the idea that the KKK was formed by a political party --- it was not, neither the original one, nor the 1915 revival, nor the short-lived 1948 revival (Samuel Green -- also no known political affiliation). The Klan rarely dabbled in politics at all, and when it did, in the 1920s, it was getting more Republicans than Democrats elected in Indiana and Colorado and the west. It was by its own view a moral police force, not a political party. It was the American Taliban of its time.


Racism has no political party --- and the transparent attempts by dishonest demagogues like Whittle Bill here, simultaneously floating the turd-idea that the DP or the RP of 1860 are exactly the same institutions that they are now (which is absolute shit-maru) in order to make the first turd float, are naught but self-serving dishonest hacks looking for YouTube hits. The racism we know in the Americas was invented centuries before by European slave traders ---- LONG before there were any political parties here, LONG before there was a country here --- to rationalize the taking of human cargo from one continent to another.

That was necessary because the blowback from the Church and individuals within it all the way back to Bartholomé de las Casas, openly questioned the morality thereof. Therefore the pseudoscientific bullshit that these Africans were "not really people" had to be invented so that slavery could flourish, so that the slave traders, and buyers, could make money, which was ultimately what it was all about.

Democrats didn't invent that; Republicans didn't invent that; politicians didn't invent that. It's way older than any of them. That's exactly why racism existed, and still exists, in the North as well as the South. It was a meme, used as an advertising tool to sell a product, which was slavery. And as a meme it's cultural. Not "political".

 

[2aguy]

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

Number one, the state legislature put it there, not the governor; number two, it's not a "Democrat flag" -- political parties don't have flags. It was a battle flag originally.

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.....

You're all over the map trying to cover up and smokescreen the original false premise, which was the idea that the KKK was formed by a political party --- it was not, neither the original one, nor the 1915 revival, nor the short-lived 1948 revival (Samuel Green -- also no known political affiliation). The Klan rarely dabbled in politics at all, and when it did, in the 1920s, it was getting more Republicans than Democrats elected in Indiana and Colorado and the west. It was by its own view a moral police force, not a political party. It was the American Taliban of its time.


Racism has no political party --- and the transparent attempts by dishonest demagogues like Whittle Bill here, simultaneously floating the turd-idea that the DP or the RP of 1860 are exactly the same institutions that they are now (which is absolute shit-maru) in order to make the first turd float, are naught but self-serving dishonest hacks looking for YouTube hits. The racism we know in the Americas was invented centuries before by European slave traders ---- LONG before there were any political parties here, LONG before there was a country here --- to rationalize the taking of human cargo from one continent to another.

That was necessary because the blowback from the Church and individuals within it all the way back to Bartholomé de las Casas, openly questioned the morality thereof. Therefore the pseudoscientific bullshit that these Africans were "not really people" had to be invented so that slavery could flourish, so that the slave traders, and buyers, could make money, which was ultimately what it was all about.

Democrats didn't invent that; Republicans didn't invent that; politicians didn't invent that. It's way older than any of them. That's exactly why racism existed, and still exists, in the North as well as the South. It was a meme, used as an advertising tool to sell a product, which was slavery. And as a meme it's cultural. Not "political".

The kkk was created by democrats and then used by democrats to terrorize freed blacks and their white Republican allies....you can't lie about that.

Racism has no political party

In America it does.....it is the democrat party.....please try to deny the list of organizations that I posted....try to lie and say that at their core they aren't racists...openly racist organization...you can't do that.....tell me the political leaders I listed and the race hustling leaders I listed aren't racists....and you can't.......

Democrats didn't invent that;

No one said they did...anywhere.......democrats embraced it...and used it to keep power before the civil war, and after the civil war, and when they could no longer keep blacks from voting they changed tactics, not beliefs....they bought votes rather than using whips and chains and they sought to not only control blacks, they realized they could control all Americans.....

It was absolutely political.......

 

[2aguy]

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

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Which is absolute historical BULLSHIT. The first state to secede was South Carolina, December 20, 1860 -- the election of 1860 had been held on November 6 --- more than six weeks EARLIER. So nobody had "just left" at all.

As for why Lincoln's name wasn't on Southern ballots -- The Republican Party simply didn't print any for the South.

>> Ballots for the election of 1860 were not printed or approved by any government office or nonpartisan group. Instead, political parties were responsible for producing and distributing their own ballots for election day. << (here)
​

... With the exception of South Carolina, which had nobody on the ballot because it didn't have a popular vote, you picked up whichever ballot you preferred --- which was printed by that candidate's political party --- and deposited it in the ballot box. The Republican Party, the 14th political party organized in the United States and at the time all of six years old, printed no ballots in the South. It also printed no ballots in the prior election of 1856 and in the next one (1864) only supplied them in Kentucky, a border/Union state and Lincoln's own birth state. Again it printed no ballots in the South. By 1868 they did start doing so, although the election was a clusterfuck with all the fraud, intimidation and widespread disenfranchisement of voters there.

What Whittle Bill is doing here is implying that elections in 1860 worked the same way they do now, with a list of all candidates from which you make a choice. That's more of his bullshit, and the device of a liar out to commit rhetorical fraud.

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Really....that is what you have.....

they left the Union as Lincoln was in his coach heading to Washington to be inaugurated.....because "They knew the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America........." There is no place there where he actually says lincoln got zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot.....you made that up...I notice you didn't quote that did you........he said Lincoln did not win any slave holding states....try quoting that part......

You need to improve you listening skills............the "left the Union" Part does not relate to the voting part of what he said...watch it again.....

Nice try to lie about what he said though.....

 

[HenryBHough]

Don't think of it as a river.

Think of denial as the Big Democrat Party hot tub.

Filter and chlorine disinfectant optional, extra, allow 200 years for delivery.

 

[Pogo]

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......

Number one, the state legislature put it there, not the governor; number two, it's not a "Democrat flag" -- political parties don't have flags. It was a battle flag originally.

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.....

You're all over the map trying to cover up and smokescreen the original false premise, which was the idea that the KKK was formed by a political party --- it was not, neither the original one, nor the 1915 revival, nor the short-lived 1948 revival (Samuel Green -- also no known political affiliation). The Klan rarely dabbled in politics at all, and when it did, in the 1920s, it was getting more Republicans than Democrats elected in Indiana and Colorado and the west. It was by its own view a moral police force, not a political party. It was the American Taliban of its time.


Racism has no political party --- and the transparent attempts by dishonest demagogues like Whittle Bill here, simultaneously floating the turd-idea that the DP or the RP of 1860 are exactly the same institutions that they are now (which is absolute shit-maru) in order to make the first turd float, are naught but self-serving dishonest hacks looking for YouTube hits. The racism we know in the Americas was invented centuries before by European slave traders ---- LONG before there were any political parties here, LONG before there was a country here --- to rationalize the taking of human cargo from one continent to another.

That was necessary because the blowback from the Church and individuals within it all the way back to Bartholomé de las Casas, openly questioned the morality thereof. Therefore the pseudoscientific bullshit that these Africans were "not really people" had to be invented so that slavery could flourish, so that the slave traders, and buyers, could make money, which was ultimately what it was all about.

Democrats didn't invent that; Republicans didn't invent that; politicians didn't invent that. It's way older than any of them. That's exactly why racism existed, and still exists, in the North as well as the South. It was a meme, used as an advertising tool to sell a product, which was slavery. And as a meme it's cultural. Not "political".

The kkk was created by democrats and then used by democrats to terrorize freed blacks and their white Republican allies....you can't lie about that.

Correct. I can't. Because I know better. But apparently you can, even though you've already been shown to be full of shit.

Hey, if you've got evidence ---- trot it out. Talk is cheap.
And no, a Whittle Billy YouTube video of ipse dixit doesn't count as "evidence". See what he says at the very beginning? "Don't take my word for it, look it up". Well I already did that before Whittle Bill whittled his Bullshit, so I already know better.

Racism has no political party

In America it does.....it is the democrat party.....please try to deny the list of organizations that I posted....try to lie and say that at their core they aren't racists...openly racist organization...you can't do that.....tell me the political leaders I listed and the race hustling leaders I listed aren't racists....and you can't.......

Don't need to. I already schooled your sorry ass with historical context. You're out here trying to play a political football game with fantasy bullshit, and you can't even spell the name of the political party you're trying to demonize.

Democrats didn't invent that;

No one said they did...anywhere.......democrats embraced it...and used it to keep power before the civil war, and after the civil war, and when they could no longer keep blacks from voting they changed tactics, not beliefs....they bought votes rather than using whips and chains and they sought to not only control blacks, they realized they could control all Americans.....

It was absolutely political.......

Again... no link, no basis, no documentation, no nuttin'. OK, not true, whole lot of nuttin'.

 

[Pogo]

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

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Which is absolute historical BULLSHIT. The first state to secede was South Carolina, December 20, 1860 -- the election of 1860 had been held on November 6 --- more than six weeks EARLIER. So nobody had "just left" at all.

As for why Lincoln's name wasn't on Southern ballots -- The Republican Party simply didn't print any for the South.

>> Ballots for the election of 1860 were not printed or approved by any government office or nonpartisan group. Instead, political parties were responsible for producing and distributing their own ballots for election day. << (here)
​

... With the exception of South Carolina, which had nobody on the ballot because it didn't have a popular vote, you picked up whichever ballot you preferred --- which was printed by that candidate's political party --- and deposited it in the ballot box. The Republican Party, the 14th political party organized in the United States and at the time all of six years old, printed no ballots in the South. It also printed no ballots in the prior election of 1856 and in the next one (1864) only supplied them in Kentucky, a border/Union state and Lincoln's own birth state. Again it printed no ballots in the South. By 1868 they did start doing so, although the election was a clusterfuck with all the fraud, intimidation and widespread disenfranchisement of voters there.

What Whittle Bill is doing here is implying that elections in 1860 worked the same way they do now, with a list of all candidates from which you make a choice. That's more of his bullshit, and the device of a liar out to commit rhetorical fraud.

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Really....that is what you have.....

they left the Union as Lincoln was in his coach heading to Washington to be inaugurated.....because "They knew the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America........." There is no place there where he actually says lincoln got zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot.....you made that up...I notice you didn't quote that did you........he said Lincoln did not win any slave holding states....try quoting that part......

You need to improve you listening skills............the "left the Union" Part does not relate to the voting part of what he said...watch it again.....

Nice try to lie about what he said though.....

I quoted him VERBATIM. There's not a damn thing you can do about that. I realize you think you can rewrite the history of a few minutes ago just as you think you can rewrite history of 150 years ago, but neither one works. It's on the video. He says immediately before that, and again I quote, "there were entire counties in the Democratic South where he (Lincoln) did not receive a single popular vote, not even one". And that's because no ballot with his name on it existed, and that's because his party didn't print any. Nor, as I told your whiny ass, did the Republican Party print any ballots for the South in the prior election or the next one. And without a ballot, you don't get any votes.

What he also leaves out is that Lincoln's Democratic opponent got the same number of Southern electoral votes as Lincoln did -- Zero. And that's because the South couldn't accept the DP candidate, bolted from the convention --- one of several times they did that --- and ran their own candidates. But he couldn't say that, because that kind of context would call into question the simplistic third-grade-reading-level Billshit he's selling to gullible morons like you, where "Democrat" in 1860 means the same thing it does now, and you're too dim to look any deeper than reducing politics to a damn football game where temporal context has no meaning.

**** that kind of knuckledragger ignorance.

 

[2aguy]

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

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Which is absolute historical BULLSHIT. The first state to secede was South Carolina, December 20, 1860 -- the election of 1860 had been held on November 6 --- more than six weeks EARLIER. So nobody had "just left" at all.

As for why Lincoln's name wasn't on Southern ballots -- The Republican Party simply didn't print any for the South.

>> Ballots for the election of 1860 were not printed or approved by any government office or nonpartisan group. Instead, political parties were responsible for producing and distributing their own ballots for election day. << (here)
​

... With the exception of South Carolina, which had nobody on the ballot because it didn't have a popular vote, you picked up whichever ballot you preferred --- which was printed by that candidate's political party --- and deposited it in the ballot box. The Republican Party, the 14th political party organized in the United States and at the time all of six years old, printed no ballots in the South. It also printed no ballots in the prior election of 1856 and in the next one (1864) only supplied them in Kentucky, a border/Union state and Lincoln's own birth state. Again it printed no ballots in the South. By 1868 they did start doing so, although the election was a clusterfuck with all the fraud, intimidation and widespread disenfranchisement of voters there.

What Whittle Bill is doing here is implying that elections in 1860 worked the same way they do now, with a list of all candidates from which you make a choice. That's more of his bullshit, and the device of a liar out to commit rhetorical fraud.

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Really....that is what you have.....

they left the Union as Lincoln was in his coach heading to Washington to be inaugurated.....because "They knew the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America........." There is no place there where he actually says lincoln got zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot.....you made that up...I notice you didn't quote that did you........he said Lincoln did not win any slave holding states....try quoting that part......

You need to improve you listening skills............the "left the Union" Part does not relate to the voting part of what he said...watch it again.....

Nice try to lie about what he said though.....

I quoted him VERBATIM. There's not a damn thing you can do about that. I realize you think you can rewrite the history of a few minutes ago just as you think you can rewrite history of 150 years ago, but neither one works. It's on the video. He says immediately before that, and again I quote, "there were entire counties in the Democratic South where he (Lincoln) did not receive a single popular vote, not even one". And that's because no ballot with his name on it existed, and that's because his party didn't print any. Nor, as I told your whiny ass, did the Republican Party print any ballots for the South in the prior election or the next one. And without a ballot, you don't get any votes.

What he also leaves out is that Lincoln's Democratic opponent got the same number of Southern electoral votes as Lincoln did -- Zero. And that's because the South couldn't accept the DP candidate, bolted from the convention --- one of several times they did that --- and ran their own candidates. But he couldn't say that, because that kind of context would call into question the simplistic third-grade-reading-level Billshit he's selling to gullible morons like you, where "Democrat" in 1860 means the same thing it does now, and you're too dim to look any deeper than reducing politics to a damn football game where temporal context has no meaning.

**** that kind of knuckledragger ignorance.

You just didn't quote the part you accused him of.....thanks for trying though.....

 

[2aguy]

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

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Which is absolute historical BULLSHIT. The first state to secede was South Carolina, December 20, 1860 -- the election of 1860 had been held on November 6 --- more than six weeks EARLIER. So nobody had "just left" at all.

As for why Lincoln's name wasn't on Southern ballots -- The Republican Party simply didn't print any for the South.

>> Ballots for the election of 1860 were not printed or approved by any government office or nonpartisan group. Instead, political parties were responsible for producing and distributing their own ballots for election day. << (here)
​

... With the exception of South Carolina, which had nobody on the ballot because it didn't have a popular vote, you picked up whichever ballot you preferred --- which was printed by that candidate's political party --- and deposited it in the ballot box. The Republican Party, the 14th political party organized in the United States and at the time all of six years old, printed no ballots in the South. It also printed no ballots in the prior election of 1856 and in the next one (1864) only supplied them in Kentucky, a border/Union state and Lincoln's own birth state. Again it printed no ballots in the South. By 1868 they did start doing so, although the election was a clusterfuck with all the fraud, intimidation and widespread disenfranchisement of voters there.

What Whittle Bill is doing here is implying that elections in 1860 worked the same way they do now, with a list of all candidates from which you make a choice. That's more of his bullshit, and the device of a liar out to commit rhetorical fraud.

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Really....that is what you have.....

they left the Union as Lincoln was in his coach heading to Washington to be inaugurated.....because "They knew the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America........." There is no place there where he actually says lincoln got zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot.....you made that up...I notice you didn't quote that did you........he said Lincoln did not win any slave holding states....try quoting that part......

You need to improve you listening skills............the "left the Union" Part does not relate to the voting part of what he said...watch it again.....

Nice try to lie about what he said though.....

I quoted him VERBATIM. There's not a damn thing you can do about that. I realize you think you can rewrite the history of a few minutes ago just as you think you can rewrite history of 150 years ago, but neither one works. It's on the video. He says immediately before that, and again I quote, "there were entire counties in the Democratic South where he (Lincoln) did not receive a single popular vote, not even one". And that's because no ballot with his name on it existed, and that's because his party didn't print any. Nor, as I told your whiny ass, did the Republican Party print any ballots for the South in the prior election or the next one. And without a ballot, you don't get any votes.

What he also leaves out is that Lincoln's Democratic opponent got the same number of Southern electoral votes as Lincoln did -- Zero. And that's because the South couldn't accept the DP candidate, bolted from the convention --- one of several times they did that --- and ran their own candidates. But he couldn't say that, because that kind of context would call into question the simplistic third-grade-reading-level Billshit he's selling to gullible morons like you, where "Democrat" in 1860 means the same thing it does now, and you're too dim to look any deeper than reducing politics to a damn football game where temporal context has no meaning.

**** that kind of knuckledragger ignorance.

Aren't you one of the assholes trying to imply thru omission that democrat "conservatives" before and during the civil war are the same as conservatives today......so you are the asshole trying to hide the truth by hiding temporal context...asshole....

 

[Pogo]

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

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Which is absolute historical BULLSHIT. The first state to secede was South Carolina, December 20, 1860 -- the election of 1860 had been held on November 6 --- more than six weeks EARLIER. So nobody had "just left" at all.

As for why Lincoln's name wasn't on Southern ballots -- The Republican Party simply didn't print any for the South.

>> Ballots for the election of 1860 were not printed or approved by any government office or nonpartisan group. Instead, political parties were responsible for producing and distributing their own ballots for election day. << (here)
​

... With the exception of South Carolina, which had nobody on the ballot because it didn't have a popular vote, you picked up whichever ballot you preferred --- which was printed by that candidate's political party --- and deposited it in the ballot box. The Republican Party, the 14th political party organized in the United States and at the time all of six years old, printed no ballots in the South. It also printed no ballots in the prior election of 1856 and in the next one (1864) only supplied them in Kentucky, a border/Union state and Lincoln's own birth state. Again it printed no ballots in the South. By 1868 they did start doing so, although the election was a clusterfuck with all the fraud, intimidation and widespread disenfranchisement of voters there.

What Whittle Bill is doing here is implying that elections in 1860 worked the same way they do now, with a list of all candidates from which you make a choice. That's more of his bullshit, and the device of a liar out to commit rhetorical fraud.

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Really....that is what you have.....

they left the Union as Lincoln was in his coach heading to Washington to be inaugurated.....because "They knew the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America........." There is no place there where he actually says lincoln got zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot.....you made that up...I notice you didn't quote that did you........he said Lincoln did not win any slave holding states....try quoting that part......

You need to improve you listening skills............the "left the Union" Part does not relate to the voting part of what he said...watch it again.....

Nice try to lie about what he said though.....

I quoted him VERBATIM. There's not a damn thing you can do about that. I realize you think you can rewrite the history of a few minutes ago just as you think you can rewrite history of 150 years ago, but neither one works. It's on the video. He says immediately before that, and again I quote, "there were entire counties in the Democratic South where he (Lincoln) did not receive a single popular vote, not even one". And that's because no ballot with his name on it existed, and that's because his party didn't print any. Nor, as I told your whiny ass, did the Republican Party print any ballots for the South in the prior election or the next one. And without a ballot, you don't get any votes.

What he also leaves out is that Lincoln's Democratic opponent got the same number of Southern electoral votes as Lincoln did -- Zero. And that's because the South couldn't accept the DP candidate, bolted from the convention --- one of several times they did that --- and ran their own candidates. But he couldn't say that, because that kind of context would call into question the simplistic third-grade-reading-level Billshit he's selling to gullible morons like you, where "Democrat" in 1860 means the same thing it does now, and you're too dim to look any deeper than reducing politics to a damn football game where temporal context has no meaning.

**** that kind of knuckledragger ignorance.

You just didn't quote the part you accused him of.....thanks for trying though.....

I put it inside quotation marks. His own words.

You can sit and go all you like, it's not going away.

 

[2aguy]

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

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Which is absolute historical BULLSHIT. The first state to secede was South Carolina, December 20, 1860 -- the election of 1860 had been held on November 6 --- more than six weeks EARLIER. So nobody had "just left" at all.

As for why Lincoln's name wasn't on Southern ballots -- The Republican Party simply didn't print any for the South.

>> Ballots for the election of 1860 were not printed or approved by any government office or nonpartisan group. Instead, political parties were responsible for producing and distributing their own ballots for election day. << (here)
​

... With the exception of South Carolina, which had nobody on the ballot because it didn't have a popular vote, you picked up whichever ballot you preferred --- which was printed by that candidate's political party --- and deposited it in the ballot box. The Republican Party, the 14th political party organized in the United States and at the time all of six years old, printed no ballots in the South. It also printed no ballots in the prior election of 1856 and in the next one (1864) only supplied them in Kentucky, a border/Union state and Lincoln's own birth state. Again it printed no ballots in the South. By 1868 they did start doing so, although the election was a clusterfuck with all the fraud, intimidation and widespread disenfranchisement of voters there.

What Whittle Bill is doing here is implying that elections in 1860 worked the same way they do now, with a list of all candidates from which you make a choice. That's more of his bullshit, and the device of a liar out to commit rhetorical fraud.

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Really....that is what you have.....

they left the Union as Lincoln was in his coach heading to Washington to be inaugurated.....because "They knew the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America........." There is no place there where he actually says lincoln got zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot.....you made that up...I notice you didn't quote that did you........he said Lincoln did not win any slave holding states....try quoting that part......

You need to improve you listening skills............the "left the Union" Part does not relate to the voting part of what he said...watch it again.....

Nice try to lie about what he said though.....

I quoted him VERBATIM. There's not a damn thing you can do about that. I realize you think you can rewrite the history of a few minutes ago just as you think you can rewrite history of 150 years ago, but neither one works. It's on the video. He says immediately before that, and again I quote, "there were entire counties in the Democratic South where he (Lincoln) did not receive a single popular vote, not even one". And that's because no ballot with his name on it existed, and that's because his party didn't print any. Nor, as I told your whiny ass, did the Republican Party print any ballots for the South in the prior election or the next one. And without a ballot, you don't get any votes.

What he also leaves out is that Lincoln's Democratic opponent got the same number of Southern electoral votes as Lincoln did -- Zero. And that's because the South couldn't accept the DP candidate, bolted from the convention --- one of several times they did that --- and ran their own candidates. But he couldn't say that, because that kind of context would call into question the simplistic third-grade-reading-level Billshit he's selling to gullible morons like you, where "Democrat" in 1860 means the same thing it does now, and you're too dim to look any deeper than reducing politics to a damn football game where temporal context has no meaning.

**** that kind of knuckledragger ignorance.

You just didn't quote the part you accused him of.....thanks for trying though.....

I put it inside quotation marks. His own words.

You can sit and go all you like, it's not going away.

You put quotation marks around some of his words...just not the ones relevant to your accusation....

 

[Pogo]

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Which is absolute historical BULLSHIT. The first state to secede was South Carolina, December 20, 1860 -- the election of 1860 had been held on November 6 --- more than six weeks EARLIER. So nobody had "just left" at all.

As for why Lincoln's name wasn't on Southern ballots -- The Republican Party simply didn't print any for the South.

>> Ballots for the election of 1860 were not printed or approved by any government office or nonpartisan group. Instead, political parties were responsible for producing and distributing their own ballots for election day. << (here)
​

... With the exception of South Carolina, which had nobody on the ballot because it didn't have a popular vote, you picked up whichever ballot you preferred --- which was printed by that candidate's political party --- and deposited it in the ballot box. The Republican Party, the 14th political party organized in the United States and at the time all of six years old, printed no ballots in the South. It also printed no ballots in the prior election of 1856 and in the next one (1864) only supplied them in Kentucky, a border/Union state and Lincoln's own birth state. Again it printed no ballots in the South. By 1868 they did start doing so, although the election was a clusterfuck with all the fraud, intimidation and widespread disenfranchisement of voters there.

What Whittle Bill is doing here is implying that elections in 1860 worked the same way they do now, with a list of all candidates from which you make a choice. That's more of his bullshit, and the device of a liar out to commit rhetorical fraud.

At exactly 2:54 he says about Lincoln getting zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot, and I quote verbatim, ""that's because the slaveholding racist Democratic states and politicians THAT HAD JUST LEFT THE UNION TO FORM THE CONFEDERACY knew that the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America".

Really....that is what you have.....

they left the Union as Lincoln was in his coach heading to Washington to be inaugurated.....because "They knew the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America........." There is no place there where he actually says lincoln got zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot.....you made that up...I notice you didn't quote that did you........he said Lincoln did not win any slave holding states....try quoting that part......

You need to improve you listening skills............the "left the Union" Part does not relate to the voting part of what he said...watch it again.....

Nice try to lie about what he said though.....

I quoted him VERBATIM. There's not a damn thing you can do about that. I realize you think you can rewrite the history of a few minutes ago just as you think you can rewrite history of 150 years ago, but neither one works. It's on the video. He says immediately before that, and again I quote, "there were entire counties in the Democratic South where he (Lincoln) did not receive a single popular vote, not even one". And that's because no ballot with his name on it existed, and that's because his party didn't print any. Nor, as I told your whiny ass, did the Republican Party print any ballots for the South in the prior election or the next one. And without a ballot, you don't get any votes.

What he also leaves out is that Lincoln's Democratic opponent got the same number of Southern electoral votes as Lincoln did -- Zero. And that's because the South couldn't accept the DP candidate, bolted from the convention --- one of several times they did that --- and ran their own candidates. But he couldn't say that, because that kind of context would call into question the simplistic third-grade-reading-level Billshit he's selling to gullible morons like you, where "Democrat" in 1860 means the same thing it does now, and you're too dim to look any deeper than reducing politics to a damn football game where temporal context has no meaning.

**** that kind of knuckledragger ignorance.

You just didn't quote the part you accused him of.....thanks for trying though.....

I put it inside quotation marks. His own words.

You can sit and go all you like, it's not going away.

You put quotation marks around some of his words...just not the ones relevant to your accusation....

We call 'em quotation marks once we learn to read, you call 'em whatever you like. The fact remains, he's completely full of shit about when the War started, completely full of shit about the origin of the KKK, and has absolutely zero evidence for either, while I have abundant evidence to the contrary.

Like it or lump it, this guy is a lying buffoon.

 

[2aguy]

Says the 7 states of the deep confederacy left even before lincoln left office....he did not put a timeline of the confederate status....he points out that the seven states of that made up the confederacy left the union before lincoln was in office.......

You know..the part you left out......

And he points out there were some counties where lincoln didn't recieve one popular vote....not even write ins.....

then he goes into the part you quoted......and misstated.....

For anyone interested it starts at about 2:20....

 

[2aguy]

Really....that is what you have.....

they left the Union as Lincoln was in his coach heading to Washington to be inaugurated.....because "They knew the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America........." There is no place there where he actually says lincoln got zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot.....you made that up...I notice you didn't quote that did you........he said Lincoln did not win any slave holding states....try quoting that part......

You need to improve you listening skills............the "left the Union" Part does not relate to the voting part of what he said...watch it again.....

Nice try to lie about what he said though.....

I quoted him VERBATIM. There's not a damn thing you can do about that. I realize you think you can rewrite the history of a few minutes ago just as you think you can rewrite history of 150 years ago, but neither one works. It's on the video. He says immediately before that, and again I quote, "there were entire counties in the Democratic South where he (Lincoln) did not receive a single popular vote, not even one". And that's because no ballot with his name on it existed, and that's because his party didn't print any. Nor, as I told your whiny ass, did the Republican Party print any ballots for the South in the prior election or the next one. And without a ballot, you don't get any votes.

What he also leaves out is that Lincoln's Democratic opponent got the same number of Southern electoral votes as Lincoln did -- Zero. And that's because the South couldn't accept the DP candidate, bolted from the convention --- one of several times they did that --- and ran their own candidates. But he couldn't say that, because that kind of context would call into question the simplistic third-grade-reading-level Billshit he's selling to gullible morons like you, where "Democrat" in 1860 means the same thing it does now, and you're too dim to look any deeper than reducing politics to a damn football game where temporal context has no meaning.

**** that kind of knuckledragger ignorance.

You just didn't quote the part you accused him of.....thanks for trying though.....

I put it inside quotation marks. His own words.

You can sit and go all you like, it's not going away.

You put quotation marks around some of his words...just not the ones relevant to your accusation....

We call 'em quotation marks once we learn to read, you call 'em whatever you like. The fact remains, he's completely full of shit about when the War started, completely full of shit about the origin of the KKK, and has absolutely zero evidence for either, while I have abundant evidence to the contrary.

Like it or lump it, this guy is a lying buffoon.

Yeah.....right....you are a real genius.....you need to re watch the video.....one day you will understand it.....

 

[2aguy]

Really....that is what you have.....

they left the Union as Lincoln was in his coach heading to Washington to be inaugurated.....because "They knew the election of a Republican President meant the end of slavery in America........." There is no place there where he actually says lincoln got zero votes because he wasn't on the ballot.....you made that up...I notice you didn't quote that did you........he said Lincoln did not win any slave holding states....try quoting that part......

You need to improve you listening skills............the "left the Union" Part does not relate to the voting part of what he said...watch it again.....

Nice try to lie about what he said though.....

I quoted him VERBATIM. There's not a damn thing you can do about that. I realize you think you can rewrite the history of a few minutes ago just as you think you can rewrite history of 150 years ago, but neither one works. It's on the video. He says immediately before that, and again I quote, "there were entire counties in the Democratic South where he (Lincoln) did not receive a single popular vote, not even one". And that's because no ballot with his name on it existed, and that's because his party didn't print any. Nor, as I told your whiny ass, did the Republican Party print any ballots for the South in the prior election or the next one. And without a ballot, you don't get any votes.

What he also leaves out is that Lincoln's Democratic opponent got the same number of Southern electoral votes as Lincoln did -- Zero. And that's because the South couldn't accept the DP candidate, bolted from the convention --- one of several times they did that --- and ran their own candidates. But he couldn't say that, because that kind of context would call into question the simplistic third-grade-reading-level Billshit he's selling to gullible morons like you, where "Democrat" in 1860 means the same thing it does now, and you're too dim to look any deeper than reducing politics to a damn football game where temporal context has no meaning.

**** that kind of knuckledragger ignorance.

You just didn't quote the part you accused him of.....thanks for trying though.....

I put it inside quotation marks. His own words.

You can sit and go all you like, it's not going away.

You put quotation marks around some of his words...just not the ones relevant to your accusation....

We call 'em quotation marks once we learn to read, you call 'em whatever you like. The fact remains, he's completely full of shit about when the War started, completely full of shit about the origin of the KKK, and has absolutely zero evidence for either, while I have abundant evidence to the contrary.

Like it or lump it, this guy is a lying buffoon.

When does he mention when the war started...? He doesn't address that...just that the 7 states of the deep confederacy left the union before Lincoln took office...dipshit........try quoting that.....

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

Bill would rip you a new asshole in a debate and send you home crying to mommy.

 

[Political Junky]

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.....

The Depression was well underway when FDR was first elected in 1932.

 

[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.....

The Depression was well underway when FDR was first elected in 1932.

Did you watch the video....I know.. I know...you guys went to government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party...so the only depression you know about is the Great Depression.....and the hagiography of FDR

The depression he mentions FIRST.....is in 1920, when Calvin Coolidge was President.......he cut taxes and cut government spending in half....and it lasted about a year.....then on the video he mentions FDR...who did the exact opposite when he was in office...raised taxes and increased spending and that depression lasted till the end of World War 2..........

Watch the video...you will learn that other depressions in American history never turned into Great Depressions because they didn't raise taxes, tarrifs and increase government spending.....things the education wing of the democrat party does not want you to know about.....

 

[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.....

The Depression was well underway when FDR was first elected in 1932.

Here....try this book........the author also wrote about FDRs depression....

Amazon.com Coolidge eBook Amity Shlaes Kindle Store

Amity Shlaes, author of The Forgotten Man, delivers a brilliant and provocative reexamination of America’s thirtieth president, Calvin Coolidge, and the decade of unparalleled growth that the nation enjoyed under his leadership. In this riveting biography, Shlaes traces Coolidge’s improbable rise from a tiny town in New England to a youth so unpopular he was shut out of college fraternities at Amherst College up through Massachusetts politics. After a divisive period of government excess and corruption, Coolidge restored national trust in Washington and achieved what few other peacetime presidents have: He left office with a federal budget smaller than the one he inherited. A man of calm discipline, he lived by example, renting half of a two-family house for his entire political career rather than compromise his political work by taking on debt. Renowned as a throwback, Coolidge was in fact strikingly modern—an advocate of women’s suffrage and a radio pioneer. At once a revision of man and economics, Coolidge gestures to the country we once were and reminds us of qualities we had forgotten and can use today.