The Flag of Treason

[Asclepias]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

It's been settled for centuries as a well established principle of international law. Issue of truth aren't settled by physical altercations.

Those who defend Lincoln have no legitimate claim of any kind. They are simply liars.

LOL before 1946 there was NO INTERNATIONAL LAW you dumb ass.

Of course there was, dumbass. It didn't start with the U.N.

Your record for posting false idiocies is 100%

Go to sleep dumb ass. Youre out of your league.

 

[Asclepias]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacists voted repub every since the implementation of the southern strategy? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

KKK endorsed Hitlery.

Sure they did. As a practical joke.

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

Lincoln did NOT want a war, he refused to call up the Army or militia UNTIL South Carolina attacked the US.

Horseshit. Lincoln was doing everything possible to start a war.

Right thats why he did not call for the Militia did nothing while forts were seized and nothing while armories were seized. He did not call the Army out he stated FOR the RECORD he wanted NO WAR. You sir are a lying moron. The facts are clear as a bell.

Lincoln was a politician, and you're telling us we should believe him? He was the most inveterate liar of the century.

 

[bripat9643]

Go to sleep dumb ass. Youre out of your league.

" Go to sleep dumb ass. Youre out of your league. "

 

[bripat9643]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

SC attacked trespassers who refused to leave. Lincoln had no legal justification for invading Virginia. In fact, it was an act of treason.

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

It's been settled for centuries as a well established principle of international law. Issue of truth aren't settled by physical altercations.

Those who defend Lincoln have no legitimate claim of any kind. They are simply liars.

LOL before 1946 there was NO INTERNATIONAL LAW you dumb ass.

Of course there was, dumbass. It didn't start with the U.N.

Your record for posting false idiocies is 100%

LOL god you are stupid.

I posted the evidence, moron. Talk about stupid.

 

[Asclepias]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

It's been settled for centuries as a well established principle of international law. Issue of truth aren't settled by physical altercations.

Those who defend Lincoln have no legitimate claim of any kind. They are simply liars.

LOL before 1946 there was NO INTERNATIONAL LAW you dumb ass.

Of course there was, dumbass. It didn't start with the U.N.

Your record for posting false idiocies is 100%

LOL god you are stupid.

I posted the evidence, moron. Talk about stupid.

You are really stupid. I think its a tie between you and this other fucking idiot. Cant remember his name.

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

Secession was still illegal unless done through Congress the Union was permanent upon JOINING.

SEZ WHO??? What are you relying on to make that claim. Please post what you are relying on.

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

Wrong again, shit for brains. Why don't you try using actual facts and logic rather that just posting your petulant demands?

The only poster with OUT any facts is YOU. And you are either a bald faced liar or to stupid to breed.

Here are some facts for you, moron:

History of international law - Wikipedia​

​

Basic concepts of international law such as treaties can be traced back thousands of years.[1] Early examples of treaties include around 2100 BC an agreement between the rulers of the city-states of Lagash and Umma in Mesopotamia, inscribed on a stone block, setting a prescribed boundary between their two states.​

 

[bripat9643]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

It's been settled for centuries as a well established principle of international law. Issue of truth aren't settled by physical altercations.

Those who defend Lincoln have no legitimate claim of any kind. They are simply liars.

LOL before 1946 there was NO INTERNATIONAL LAW you dumb ass.

Of course there was, dumbass. It didn't start with the U.N.

Your record for posting false idiocies is 100%

LOL god you are stupid.

I posted the evidence, moron. Talk about stupid.

You are really stupid. I think its a tie between you and this other fucking idiot. Cant remember his name.

Spits the idiot who has been proven 100% wrong about everything he posts.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

The two points are not mutually exclusive.

Was secession legal? It was unclear.

Who started the shooting? The South shot first.

Was the U.S. illegally occupying SC territory (Fort Sumter) or was the fort U.S. property? I don't know but it looks like that would have been an issue in the U.S.'s favor under Art IV Sec 3.

Did the U.S. own the entire state of South Carolina? FUCK NO!!! COMPLETE BULLSHIT, even based on the language of Art IV Sec 3.


Did we clear it all up?

 

[DukeU]

 

[bripat9643]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

SC kicked trespassers off its territory. That's perfectly acceptable under international law. Refusing to leave was a violation.

You're a douche, of course.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

SC attacked trespassers who refused to leave. Lincoln had no legal justification for invading Virginia. In fact, it was an act of treason.

Be specific now and cite for us ANY law by any Nation in 1860 that allowed a part of their Country to leave just because they wanted to. Be specific now and cite the SUPPOSED International law in 1860 that made sovereign Territory of one nation the property of another Nation simply because the other Nation said so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

SC kicked trespassers off its territory. That's perfectly acceptable under international law. Refusing to leave was a violation.

You're a douche, of course.

Moron it was NOT their property.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

SC attacked trespassers who refused to leave. Lincoln had no legal justification for invading Virginia. In fact, it was an act of treason.

Be specific now and cite for us ANY law by any Nation in 1860 that allowed a part of their Country to leave just because they wanted to. Be specific now and cite the SUPPOSED International law in 1860 that made sovereign Territory of one nation the property of another Nation simply because the other Nation said so.

It wasn't "sovereign territory." It was merely property. The transfer agreement made that explicitly clear.

I don't need to post a law that allows it. The absence of any law that prohibits it means it was legal. That's how the law works, dumbass. I don't need a law that says I can ride my bike to the park.

You have a thoroughly Stalinist attitude about law.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

SC kicked trespassers off its territory. That's perfectly acceptable under international law. Refusing to leave was a violation.

You're a douche, of course.

Moron it was NOT their property.

Correct. It was their territory, moron, just as our air bases in Germany are part of Germany.

You still don't seem to understand the distinction between property and territory.

 

[Nostra]

Why does our President support the racist, treasonous Confederate Flag?

Why do the Democrats call their flag treasonous one hundred and sixty five years later?

Why do racists support the GOP?

Why do racists support the DNC? *yawn*

None of these guys voted for Obama.

But this KKK leader voted for HItlery............and donated heavily to her campaign.



Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President


HILLARY CLINTON CAN ADD a new name to her list of endorsements – a prominent Ku Klux Klan member who says he likes her because of her "hidden agenda."
Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan's California chapter, told the Telegraph Monday that he would be switching his support from Donald Trump to Clinton.
Quigg had endorsed Trump on Twitter in September:

@realDonaldTrump You Sir are the only hope we have of getting WHITE AMERICA BACK! WE all will be voting for you! CHURCH OF INVISABLE EMPIRE
— Wm. Quigg (@GrandDragonCa) September 17, 2015

Now, though, he says he's changing his tune.
"We want Hillary Clinton to win," he said. "She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. Once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colors are going to show. Border policies are going to be put in place. Our second amendment rights that she’s saying she’s against now, she’s not against. She’s just our choice for the presidency."

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president

 

[Nostra]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacist voted repub? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

Except the white supremacists did not all vote repub.


They were mostly the rural poor and they mostly voted their economic interests, ie the party of government handouts, ie the dems.


It was the wealthier suburbs where the GOP made it's inroads.


This has all been well known and documented for years. Are you really this ignorant of this?


Your white lib friends have been lying to you and snickering at you for falling for their stupid lies.

Sorry, you don't have the credibility to get me to watch a vid. Post links with text, and I'll address your lies.

I didnt really post it for you. I know youre too retarded to watch it.

Words. Use words or be ignored.

I'd rather you ignore me.

Tired of getting your racist ass kicked?

 

[Nostra]

Of course they do but the feds can swoop in and take it over.

Sez WHO???

Emminant domain.

Good Lord, just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber.



What Is Eminent Domain?
Eminent domain is the power of the United States government, states, and municipalities to take private property for public use, following the payment of just compensation.

 

[Nostra]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacists voted repub every since the implementation of the southern strategy? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

KKK endorsed Hitlery.

Sure they did. As a practical joke.

I will have to ask you to prove that.