Trump as healer: lie of 2016

[Pogo]

Ok, one small detail, not founded but early joiner, he got in on the ground floor. And he was kind of a big shot, possibly the big kahuna.

Even the Huffington Post backs me up...Shit...They say he founded it, minor detail.....but I love arguing with lefties, not hard to do.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest Versus the Ku Klux Klan

I see where the blog refers to him as "founder" but that's simply wrong, and provably so. I've got like 25 links, literally.

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Post that link again.

Say please.

It's up there in 127. Break a sweat for once.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And I could go into the democrats, but I've done it before. Only one dixiecrat became a republican, Strom Thurmond. The rest of the gang that opposed the 64 civil rights act on race (Goldwater opposed it on the forcing you to do stuff, different reason) never became republicans.

There were in fact only two Dixiecrats -- Thurmond and his running mate Wright -- who died around 1956.

The "rest of the gang" I don't really know who you mean but I know Jesse Helms switched, and so did Trent Lott.

They did there were a few, but not that many. The 64 civil rightmost actually no voters had one democrat switch out of 23. Guys like george wallace and William fulbright never switched.

Tn didn't have a Republican house until 2008.
And if you want to see racism, work for a black republican, the racism doesn't come from the conservative republicans. I worked for rod deberry 1994 9th congressional district as a college kid and I never saw real racism until then. And it was the nasty from both white and black democrats.

 

[S.J.]

Even the Huffington Post backs me up...Shit...They say he founded it, minor detail.....but I love arguing with lefties, not hard to do.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest Versus the Ku Klux Klan

I see where the blog refers to him as "founder" but that's simply wrong, and provably so. I've got like 25 links, literally.

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Post that link again.

Say please.

It's up there in 127. Break a sweat for once.

Southern Poverty Law Center. A mouthpiece for radical black racists for 45 years. Do you have anything credible?

 

[Pogo]

I see where the blog refers to him as "founder" but that's simply wrong, and provably so. I've got like 25 links, literally.

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Post that link again.

Say please.

It's up there in 127. Break a sweat for once.

Southern Poverty Law Center. A mouthpiece for radical black racists for 45 years. Do you have anything credible?

Do you have anything supporting your point? Other than "wull, gee Wally"?

Dismissed.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Correct, but you're walking back your previous post where you said he founded it. He didn't.

You're welcome.

Ok, one small detail, not founded but early joiner, he got in on the ground floor. And he was kind of a big shot, possibly the big kahuna.

Even the Huffington Post backs me up...Shit...They say he founded it, minor detail.....but I love arguing with lefties, not hard to do.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest Versus the Ku Klux Klan

I see where the blog refers to him as "founder" but that's simply wrong, and provably so. I've got like 25 links, literally.

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Forrest really didn't "join" -- he was recruited at a meeting where he wasn't even present. In other words, drafted. Much like the Know Nothings drafted Fillmore in absentia.

So he was drafted by a social club with no connection to race or politics? We're talking about THE klan right?

 

[S.J.]

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Post that link again.

Say please.

It's up there in 127. Break a sweat for once.

Southern Poverty Law Center. A mouthpiece for radical black racists for 45 years. Do you have anything credible?

Do you have anything supporting your point? Other than "wull, gee Wally"?

Dismissed.

Translation: No, no credible source.

 

[Pogo]

And I could go into the democrats, but I've done it before. Only one dixiecrat became a republican, Strom Thurmond. The rest of the gang that opposed the 64 civil rights act on race (Goldwater opposed it on the forcing you to do stuff, different reason) never became republicans.

There were in fact only two Dixiecrats -- Thurmond and his running mate Wright -- who died around 1956.

The "rest of the gang" I don't really know who you mean but I know Jesse Helms switched, and so did Trent Lott.

They did there were a few, but not that many. The 64 civil rightmost actually no voters had one democrat switch out of 23. Guys like george wallace and William fulbright never switched.

Tn didn't have a Republican house until 2008.
And if you want to see racism, work for a black republican, the racism doesn't come from the conservative republicans. I worked for rod deberry 1994 9th congressional district as a college kid and I never saw real racism until then. And it was the nasty from both white and black democrats.

This is the next place I would have gone to make that point from the repost --- that point being that it's about regions and cultures and South versus North, not about political parties ----

CRA vote 1964 (for this purpose "Northern" means "everybody not in the South"):

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows slightly more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not at all significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. A

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)
​

This is where the party-partisan mythology crumbles to dust. This was a regional issue, not a political party one. QED.

 

[buckeye45_73]

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Post that link again.

Say please.

It's up there in 127. Break a sweat for once.

Southern Poverty Law Center. A mouthpiece for radical black racists for 45 years. Do you have anything credible?

Do you have anything supporting your point? Other than "wull, gee Wally"?

Dismissed.

Sorry but the southern law poverty center is leftwing nut job of an organization. The make Web Dubois look conservative, and they think anyone to the right of Stalin is a nazi

 

[Pogo]

Ok, one small detail, not founded but early joiner, he got in on the ground floor. And he was kind of a big shot, possibly the big kahuna.

Even the Huffington Post backs me up...Shit...They say he founded it, minor detail.....but I love arguing with lefties, not hard to do.

General Nathan Bedford Forrest Versus the Ku Klux Klan

I see where the blog refers to him as "founder" but that's simply wrong, and provably so. I've got like 25 links, literally.

That's fine, but Forrest was the big name and he join med soon after it was founded. He was the big fish, he told them to fuck off and the he worked with republicans.

But it was started as an anti republican fraternity.

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Forrest really didn't "join" -- he was recruited at a meeting where he wasn't even present. In other words, drafted. Much like the Know Nothings drafted Fillmore in absentia.

So he was drafted by a social club with no connection to race or politics? We're talking about THE klan right?

It was founded as a social club, yes. What it evolved into, I quoted some of that from the source itself, in the other thread.
I'm trying to observe that the Klan isn't the topic here. That's kind of why I linked to the other thread, where it is the topic.

Are y'all afraid to click into that thread or what?

 

[Pogo]

No, it was started as a social club. Had nothing to do with politics. There's more about that in the thread I linked as far as how the original social club became activists.

Post that link again.

Say please.

It's up there in 127. Break a sweat for once.

Southern Poverty Law Center. A mouthpiece for radical black racists for 45 years. Do you have anything credible?

Do you have anything supporting your point? Other than "wull, gee Wally"?

Dismissed.

Sorry but the southern law poverty center is leftwing nut job of an organization. The make Web Dubois look conservative, and they think anyone to the right of Stalin is a nazi

Sorry but poisoning the well is not an argument -- it's a fallacy.
You counter the argument by providing evidence to the contrary, not by going "waaah I don't like them".

Doesn't matter to me, I've got as I said, 20 or 30 more sources.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And I could go into the democrats, but I've done it before. Only one dixiecrat became a republican, Strom Thurmond. The rest of the gang that opposed the 64 civil rights act on race (Goldwater opposed it on the forcing you to do stuff, different reason) never became republicans.

There were in fact only two Dixiecrats -- Thurmond and his running mate Wright -- who died around 1956.

The "rest of the gang" I don't really know who you mean but I know Jesse Helms switched, and so did Trent Lott.

They did there were a few, but not that many. The 64 civil rightmost actually no voters had one democrat switch out of 23. Guys like george wallace and William fulbright never switched.

Tn didn't have a Republican house until 2008.
And if you want to see racism, work for a black republican, the racism doesn't come from the conservative republicans. I worked for rod deberry 1994 9th congressional district as a college kid and I never saw real racism until then. And it was the nasty from both white and black democrats.

This is the next place I would have gone to make that point from the repost --- that point being that it's about regions and cultures and South versus North, not about political parties ----

CRA vote 1964 (for this purpose "Northern" means "everybody not in the South"):

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows slightly more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not at all significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. A

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)
​

This is where the party-partisan mythology crumbles to dust. This was a regional issue, not a political party one. QED.

Very true. Which is why I laugh at the southern strategy. Very few of those guys changed parties or even voted republican. TN had 2 democrat senators until the 90s, the state house was democrat until the 2000s. The reason it went republican was people like me leaving the north.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Post that link again.

Say please.

It's up there in 127. Break a sweat for once.

Southern Poverty Law Center. A mouthpiece for radical black racists for 45 years. Do you have anything credible?

Do you have anything supporting your point? Other than "wull, gee Wally"?

Dismissed.

Sorry but the southern law poverty center is leftwing nut job of an organization. The make Web Dubois look conservative, and they think anyone to the right of Stalin is a nazi

Sorry but poisoning the well is not an argument -- it's a fallacy.
You counter the argument by providing evidence to the contrary, not by going "waaah I don't like them".

Doesn't matter to me, I've got as I said, 20 or 30 more sources.

Ok fire away.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Here's one

Ku Klux Klan Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Ku Klux Klan

I find the part on Hugo black interesting. Alot more racist progressives than we hear about
Wilson, Sanger, black, fulbright, hmmmmmmm

And I'm sad Sanger was a republican, but the rest democrats.

 

[Pogo]

Here's one

Ku Klux Klan Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Ku Klux Klan

I find the part on Hugo black interesting. Alot more racist progressives than we hear about
Wilson, Sanger, black, fulbright, hmmmmmmm

There's no evidence for most of them. Harding, Coolidge, Truman, often intimated, never documated.

 

[Pogo]

And I could go into the democrats, but I've done it before. Only one dixiecrat became a republican, Strom Thurmond. The rest of the gang that opposed the 64 civil rights act on race (Goldwater opposed it on the forcing you to do stuff, different reason) never became republicans.

There were in fact only two Dixiecrats -- Thurmond and his running mate Wright -- who died around 1956.

The "rest of the gang" I don't really know who you mean but I know Jesse Helms switched, and so did Trent Lott.

They did there were a few, but not that many. The 64 civil rightmost actually no voters had one democrat switch out of 23. Guys like george wallace and William fulbright never switched.

Tn didn't have a Republican house until 2008.
And if you want to see racism, work for a black republican, the racism doesn't come from the conservative republicans. I worked for rod deberry 1994 9th congressional district as a college kid and I never saw real racism until then. And it was the nasty from both white and black democrats.

This is the next place I would have gone to make that point from the repost --- that point being that it's about regions and cultures and South versus North, not about political parties ----

CRA vote 1964 (for this purpose "Northern" means "everybody not in the South"):

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows slightly more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not at all significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. A

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)
​

This is where the party-partisan mythology crumbles to dust. This was a regional issue, not a political party one. QED.

Very true. Which is why I laugh at the southern strategy. Very few of those guys changed parties or even voted republican. TN had 2 democrat senators until the 90s, the state house was democrat until the 2000s. The reason it went republican was people like me leaving the north.

aHA so you're a damn Yankee.

Well I'm a halfbreed so I win.

 

[buckeye45_73]

And I could go into the democrats, but I've done it before. Only one dixiecrat became a republican, Strom Thurmond. The rest of the gang that opposed the 64 civil rights act on race (Goldwater opposed it on the forcing you to do stuff, different reason) never became republicans.

There were in fact only two Dixiecrats -- Thurmond and his running mate Wright -- who died around 1956.

The "rest of the gang" I don't really know who you mean but I know Jesse Helms switched, and so did Trent Lott.

They did there were a few, but not that many. The 64 civil rightmost actually no voters had one democrat switch out of 23. Guys like george wallace and William fulbright never switched.

Tn didn't have a Republican house until 2008.
And if you want to see racism, work for a black republican, the racism doesn't come from the conservative republicans. I worked for rod deberry 1994 9th congressional district as a college kid and I never saw real racism until then. And it was the nasty from both white and black democrats.

This is the next place I would have gone to make that point from the repost --- that point being that it's about regions and cultures and South versus North, not about political parties ----

CRA vote 1964 (for this purpose "Northern" means "everybody not in the South"):

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows slightly more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not at all significant.

But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode.

The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. A

You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions. (!)
​

This is where the party-partisan mythology crumbles to dust. This was a regional issue, not a political party one. QED.

Very true. Which is why I laugh at the southern strategy. Very few of those guys changed parties or even voted republican. TN had 2 democrat senators until the 90s, the state house was democrat until the 2000s. The reason it went republican was people like me leaving the north.

aHA so you're a damn Yankee.

Well I'm a halfbreed so I win.

Haha nice. I'm from columbus ohio. My dad's a chemistry professor at UT. So I never saw racism until the 94 campaign, I despise people who use the term uncle Tom, house ****** and ore to this day.


I have a buddy who gives me the black power fist and I pop him the Heil hitler, for fun and we've had great discussions on race, politics and life. Hell I'm as white as can be, but I know alot of blacks that say I'm a nigga( in a good way). I actually really like diversity, just not when it's forced on you.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Here's one

Ku Klux Klan Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Ku Klux Klan

I find the part on Hugo black interesting. Alot more racist progressives than we hear about
Wilson, Sanger, black, fulbright, hmmmmmmm

There's no evidence for most of them. Harding, Coolidge, Truman, often intimated, never documated.

Huh? Coolidge a and harding were not racists, but they were conservative.
Eugenics was racist as he'll, most of your consensus at the time was ravial.superiority through Eugenics. Science can be politicized very badly.

 

[Pogo]

Here's one

Ku Klux Klan Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Ku Klux Klan

I find the part on Hugo black interesting. Alot more racist progressives than we hear about
Wilson, Sanger, black, fulbright, hmmmmmmm

There's no evidence for most of them. Harding, Coolidge, Truman, often intimated, never documated.

Huh? Coolidge a and harding were not racists, but they were conservative.
Eugenics was racist as he'll, most of your consensus at the time was ravial.superiority through Eugenics. Science can be politicized very badly.

As I said, often intimated, never documated. They all happened to be around at the time the big Klan was peaking, and that was when the Klan actually was buggering in politics, on the state level anyway. Especially in the '20s. A third of the male population of Indiana ... 23% of the population of Maine.... so there's more evidence for others but not really Presidents.

I'm out for the night, it's ridiculously late.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nice try at rewriting history but the Klan was the sole creation of Democrats who wanted Republicans out of office and my link proves it. And George H.W. Bush didn't kill Kennedy, despite what you tried to imply in this post. You must be a glutton for punishment for continuing to bring it up, idiot.
Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

Conservatives created the Klan

 

[S.J.]

Nice try at rewriting history but the Klan was the sole creation of Democrats who wanted Republicans out of office and my link proves it. And George H.W. Bush didn't kill Kennedy, despite what you tried to imply in this post. You must be a glutton for punishment for continuing to bring it up, idiot.
Why did Jimmy Carter accomplish so little during his 4 years as president?

Conservatives created the Klan

Sure, Buddy. Go back to your bong.