Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[Pogo]

You'd like to say it was war between north and south, but in reality, it was war between Republicans and Democrats.

That's correct
All slaveholders were Democratics
Even in the south, no Republicans owned slaves

Probably true, since the Republicans didn't organize, or even run a POTUS candidate, in the South until 1868. And that year's candidate, Grant, had been a slaveholder but was not in the South, so I'll give you that.

But as to the first part, nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno. Nobody holding (or trading/selling) slaves ever needed a political party. And that (both) was going on for three hundred years before "Democratics" existed, or any other political party. Which in turn means that the overwheliming majority of slave owners/traders had no political party at all. Nor did they need one.

Again, wrong.

Grant did have one slave, that he inherited from his in laws, and free him years before the Civil War.

No, it's not "wrong". Lurn to REED.

At the time when he briefly owned the slave, he was... yes, a Democrat.

Linkie?

Google it

View attachment 305410

Uh ---- nnnnnnnoooo, YOU Google it. And bring back an actual LINK to an actual SOURCE, not a fucking user-generated image.

It's not my assertion, and yet I already did Google it. Which is why I axed you for a link. Grant's wife was a Democrat. Grant's father was a Democrat. Grant himself? Not seeing any documentation. Not that it would be of any use to anything whatsoever other than trying to prop up your fatally flawed Composition Fallacy anyway but I'm just making you squirm here because I know you can't do it.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

There was no party switch.

Switch could only happen if there was massive change from one party to another. The truth is, all racist Democrats stayed in Democratic party.

So, let's test it. I am not going to ask you for names of all, but just for five racist Democrats that became Republicans due to the "party switch".

I'll help you with first one, you fill the rest.
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

 

[Pogo]

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

There was no party switch.

Switch could only happen if there was massive change from one party to another. The truth is, all racist Democrats stayed in Democratic party.

So, let's test it. I am not going to ask you for names of all, but just for five racist Democrats that became Republicans due to the "party switch".

I'll help you with first one, you fill the rest.
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Strom Thurmond wasn't even BORN in that period, Dumbass. Read much?

 

[Ame®icano]

That's correct
All slaveholders were Democratics
Even in the south, no Republicans owned slaves

Probably true, since the Republicans didn't organize, or even run a POTUS candidate, in the South until 1868. And that year's candidate, Grant, had been a slaveholder but was not in the South, so I'll give you that.

But as to the first part, nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno. Nobody holding (or trading/selling) slaves ever needed a political party. And that (both) was going on for three hundred years before "Democratics" existed, or any other political party. Which in turn means that the overwheliming majority of slave owners/traders had no political party at all. Nor did they need one.

Again, wrong.

Grant did have one slave, that he inherited from his in laws, and free him years before the Civil War.

No, it's not "wrong". Lurn to REED.

At the time when he briefly owned the slave, he was... yes, a Democrat.

Linkie?

Google it

View attachment 305410

Uh ---- nnnnnnnoooo, YOU Google it. And bring back an actual LINK to an actual SOURCE, not a fucking user-generated image.

It's not my assertion, and yet I already did Google it. Which is why I axed you for a link. Grant's wife was a Democrat. Grant's father was a Democrat. Grant himself? Not seeing any documentation. Not that it would be of any use to anything whatsoever other than trying to prop up your fatally flawed Composition Fallacy anyway but I'm just making you squirm here because I know you can't do it.

I literally did Googled it, with a question "was Grant a Democrat", and posted you an image of the first answer. If you think I am lying, and it seems you do think so with your complaint of "user generated image", you would check it yourself.

Or, you did checked it, and got the same result. And you didn't like it.

 

[Ame®icano]

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

There was no party switch.

Switch could only happen if there was massive change from one party to another. The truth is, all racist Democrats stayed in Democratic party.

So, let's test it. I am not going to ask you for names of all, but just for five racist Democrats that became Republicans due to the "party switch".

I'll help you with first one, you fill the rest.
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Strom Thurmond wasn't even BORN in that period, Dumbass. Read much?

Huh?

Strom Thurmond - Wikipedia

How about you post those four more names, shitstain?

 

[Pogo]

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

There was no party switch.

Switch could only happen if there was massive change from one party to another. The truth is, all racist Democrats stayed in Democratic party.

So, let's test it. I am not going to ask you for names of all, but just for five racist Democrats that became Republicans due to the "party switch".

I'll help you with first one, you fill the rest.
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Strom Thurmond wasn't even BORN in that period, Dumbass. Read much?

Huh?

Strom Thurmond - Wikipedia

How about you post those four more names, shitstain?

I don't need a link to Strom Thurmond. I'm distantly related.

I gave you five names back when I fleshed out that question. Those were, in order of appearance, William McKinley, William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson.

Strom Thurmond was just being born in that period. 1902.

 

[Pogo]

Probably true, since the Republicans didn't organize, or even run a POTUS candidate, in the South until 1868. And that year's candidate, Grant, had been a slaveholder but was not in the South, so I'll give you that.

But as to the first part, nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno. Nobody holding (or trading/selling) slaves ever needed a political party. And that (both) was going on for three hundred years before "Democratics" existed, or any other political party. Which in turn means that the overwheliming majority of slave owners/traders had no political party at all. Nor did they need one.

Again, wrong.

Grant did have one slave, that he inherited from his in laws, and free him years before the Civil War.

No, it's not "wrong". Lurn to REED.

At the time when he briefly owned the slave, he was... yes, a Democrat.

Linkie?

Google it

View attachment 305410

Uh ---- nnnnnnnoooo, YOU Google it. And bring back an actual LINK to an actual SOURCE, not a fucking user-generated image.

It's not my assertion, and yet I already did Google it. Which is why I axed you for a link. Grant's wife was a Democrat. Grant's father was a Democrat. Grant himself? Not seeing any documentation. Not that it would be of any use to anything whatsoever other than trying to prop up your fatally flawed Composition Fallacy anyway but I'm just making you squirm here because I know you can't do it.

I literally did Googled it, with a question "was Grant a Democrat", and posted you an image of the first answer. If you think I am lying, and it seems you do think so with your complaint of "user generated image", you would check it yourself.

Or, you did checked it, and got the same result. And you didn't like it.

So you can't do it.

Moving on.....

 

[Ame®icano]

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

There was no party switch.

Switch could only happen if there was massive change from one party to another. The truth is, all racist Democrats stayed in Democratic party.

So, let's test it. I am not going to ask you for names of all, but just for five racist Democrats that became Republicans due to the "party switch".

I'll help you with first one, you fill the rest.
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Strom Thurmond wasn't even BORN in that period, Dumbass. Read much?

Huh?

Strom Thurmond - Wikipedia

How about you post those four more names, shitstain?

I don't need a link to Strom Thurmond. I'm distantly related.

I gave you five names back when I fleshed out that question. Those were, in order of appearance, William McKinley, William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson.

Strom Thurmond was just being born in that period. 1902.

Let me remind you... the claim was that parties switched sides, and that allegedly happened in sixties.

I was clear with my question. Name five racist Democrats that left Democratic Party for Republican party.

And you're talking about Woodrow Wilson? Was he Dixicrat too?

 

[Pogo]

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

There was no party switch.

Switch could only happen if there was massive change from one party to another. The truth is, all racist Democrats stayed in Democratic party.

So, let's test it. I am not going to ask you for names of all, but just for five racist Democrats that became Republicans due to the "party switch".

I'll help you with first one, you fill the rest.
1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

Strom Thurmond wasn't even BORN in that period, Dumbass. Read much?

Huh?

Strom Thurmond - Wikipedia

How about you post those four more names, shitstain?

I don't need a link to Strom Thurmond. I'm distantly related.

I gave you five names back when I fleshed out that question. Those were, in order of appearance, William McKinley, William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson.

Strom Thurmond was just being born in that period. 1902.

Let me remind you... the claim was that parties switched sides, and that allegedly happened in sixties.

I was clear with my question. Name five racist Democrats that left Democratic Party for Republican party.

And you're talking about Woodrow Wilson? Was he Dixicrat too?

Are you COMPLETELY incapable of following the thread, or is this just another desperate deflection attempt?

 

[Ame®icano]

Again, wrong.

Grant did have one slave, that he inherited from his in laws, and free him years before the Civil War.

No, it's not "wrong". Lurn to REED.

At the time when he briefly owned the slave, he was... yes, a Democrat.

Linkie?

Google it

View attachment 305410

Uh ---- nnnnnnnoooo, YOU Google it. And bring back an actual LINK to an actual SOURCE, not a fucking user-generated image.

It's not my assertion, and yet I already did Google it. Which is why I axed you for a link. Grant's wife was a Democrat. Grant's father was a Democrat. Grant himself? Not seeing any documentation. Not that it would be of any use to anything whatsoever other than trying to prop up your fatally flawed Composition Fallacy anyway but I'm just making you squirm here because I know you can't do it.

I literally did Googled it, with a question "was Grant a Democrat", and posted you an image of the first answer. If you think I am lying, and it seems you do think so with your complaint of "user generated image", you would check it yourself.

Or, you did checked it, and got the same result. And you didn't like it.

So you can't do it.

Moving on.....

You're funny. I haven't replied in 10 minutes and you're claiming some "victory", and run away.

Unlike you, I rely on books... Few samples.

American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant

Page 160 "IN AUGUST, GRANT applied for the position of county engineer; he believed his education qualified him for the position, and it paid $1,900 a year. He spent time collecting recommendations from “the very first citizens of this place, and members of all parties.” He enclosed a letter of recommendation from Joseph Reynolds, a West Point classmate now professor of mechanics and engineering at Washington University in St. Louis. The list of names at the bottom of his application included philanthropist John O’Fallon; George W. Fishback, part owner of the Missouri Democrat, the Republican newspaper; and Charles A. Pope, professor of surgery at St. Louis Medical College and former president of the American Medical Association. The thirty-five endorsements were testimony to the friendships Grant formed in the past five years.

He wrote his father five days later, “I am not over sanguine of getting the appointment.” Why? “I fear they will make strictly party nominations for all offices under their control.”

He was right. Within a month, he learned he did not get the position. The vote, as he predicted, was strictly party line: two Democrats voted for Grant, while the three “freesoilers” antislavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties voted for his opponent."

Page 340 "AT THIS SAME time, Grant was taken aback by an inquiry received about a different office. On December 7, Barnabas Burns, head of a group within the Ohio Democratic Party in favor of vigorously prosecuting the war, asked whether he would permit his name to be used “as a presidential candidate” at a January convention to elect delegates to the 1864 national Democratic convention."

 

[Pogo]

No, it's not "wrong". Lurn to REED.

Linkie?

Google it

View attachment 305410

Uh ---- nnnnnnnoooo, YOU Google it. And bring back an actual LINK to an actual SOURCE, not a fucking user-generated image.

It's not my assertion, and yet I already did Google it. Which is why I axed you for a link. Grant's wife was a Democrat. Grant's father was a Democrat. Grant himself? Not seeing any documentation. Not that it would be of any use to anything whatsoever other than trying to prop up your fatally flawed Composition Fallacy anyway but I'm just making you squirm here because I know you can't do it.

I literally did Googled it, with a question "was Grant a Democrat", and posted you an image of the first answer. If you think I am lying, and it seems you do think so with your complaint of "user generated image", you would check it yourself.

Or, you did checked it, and got the same result. And you didn't like it.

So you can't do it.

Moving on.....

You're funny. I haven't replied in 10 minutes and you're claiming some "victory", and run away.

Unlike you, I rely on books... Few samples.

American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant

Page 160 "IN AUGUST, GRANT applied for the position of county engineer; he believed his education qualified him for the position, and it paid $1,900 a year. He spent time collecting recommendations from “the very first citizens of this place, and members of all parties.” He enclosed a letter of recommendation from Joseph Reynolds, a West Point classmate now professor of mechanics and engineering at Washington University in St. Louis. The list of names at the bottom of his application included philanthropist John O’Fallon; George W. Fishback, part owner of the Missouri Democrat, the Republican newspaper; and Charles A. Pope, professor of surgery at St. Louis Medical College and former president of the American Medical Association. The thirty-five endorsements were testimony to the friendships Grant formed in the past five years.

He wrote his father five days later, “I am not over sanguine of getting the appointment.” Why? “I fear they will make strictly party nominations for all offices under their control.”

He was right. Within a month, he learned he did not get the position. The vote, as he predicted, was strictly party line: two Democrats voted for Grant, while the three “freesoilers” antislavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties voted for his opponent."

Page 340 "AT THIS SAME time, Grant was taken aback by an inquiry received about a different office. On December 7, Barnabas Burns, head of a group within the Ohio Democratic Party in favor of vigorously prosecuting the war, asked whether he would permit his name to be used “as a presidential candidate” at a January convention to elect delegates to the 1864 national Democratic convention."

TWO MORE images instead of links. And even those images still fail to make your case.

You know, the case the entire purpose of which was to try to build a Composition Fallacy. That case.

Cute turn of phrase though, where a vote along "strict party lines" has Democrats voting for and Democrats voting against. Doesn't get more "strict party line" than that, amirite?

Fuxsake, did you even read your Googly Image?

 

[Ame®icano]

Are you COMPLETELY incapable of following the thread, or is this just another desperate deflection attempt?

Not following thread?

Lets see...

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

My reply:

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

This is where you join the conversation...

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

I am the one who's not following???

Here is the whole thing...

Retard.

 

[Pogo]

Are you COMPLETELY incapable of following the thread, or is this just another desperate deflection attempt?

Not following thread?

Lets see...

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

My reply:

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

This is where you join the conversation...

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

I am the one who's not following???

Here is the whole thing...

View attachment 305444

Retard.

Actually that's the latter part of the nineteenth century, into the early part of the twentieth. That's what Post 50 was entirely about. And again, it was right in the middle of that transition that Strom Thurmond was born.

Now Strom Thurmond HIMSELF --- not his party --- did switch, in 1964, as a result of losing the fight to quash civil rights. Did the unthinkable and joined the Party of Lincoln. Many followed, but that's people switching, not parties.

And NO, that is NOT where I joined the conversation. I had already expounded on that transition --- again, post 50, which seems to have sailed clear over your hood.

 

[Ame®icano]

Are you COMPLETELY incapable of following the thread, or is this just another desperate deflection attempt?

Not following thread?

Lets see...

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

My reply:

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

This is where you join the conversation...

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

I am the one who's not following???

Here is the whole thing...

View attachment 305444

Retard.

Actually that's the latter part of the nineteenth century, into the early part of the twentieth. That's what Post 50 was entirely about. And again, it was right in the middle of that transition that Strom Thurmond was born.

Now Strom Thurmond HIMSELF --- not his party --- did switch, in 1964, as a result of losing the fight to quash civil rights. Did the unthinkable and joined the Party of Lincoln. Many followed, but that's people switching, not parties.

And NO, that is NOT where I joined the conversation. I had already expounded on that transition --- again, post 50, which seems to have sailed clear over your hood.

Actually NOT.

You see red letters i highlighted above? That is exactly what Lysistrata and I were talking about.

latter part of the 20th Century

Moron.

 

[Pogo]

Are you COMPLETELY incapable of following the thread, or is this just another desperate deflection attempt?

Not following thread?

Lets see...

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

My reply:

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

This is where you join the conversation...

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

I am the one who's not following???

Here is the whole thing...

View attachment 305444

Retard.

Actually that's the latter part of the nineteenth century, into the early part of the twentieth. That's what Post 50 was entirely about. And again, it was right in the middle of that transition that Strom Thurmond was born.

Now Strom Thurmond HIMSELF --- not his party --- did switch, in 1964, as a result of losing the fight to quash civil rights. Did the unthinkable and joined the Party of Lincoln. Many followed, but that's people switching, not parties.

And NO, that is NOT where I joined the conversation. I had already expounded on that transition --- again, post 50, which seems to have sailed clear over your hood.

Actually NOT.

You see red letters i highlighted above? That is exactly what Lysistrata and I were talking about.

latter part of the 20th Century

Moron.

McKinley and Bryan faced off in 1896. And again in 1900. That's the nineteenth century, not the 20th. And that **IS** what YOU were posting about when you got here. Roll tape.

Republican party is established to stop expansion of slavery into territories and to abolish the slavery. If you were proponent of slavery or slave owner, you could not join the party, and party was primarily joined by northern Protestants, blacks, workers, farmers, former Whigs and, yes... some Democrats who were against the slavery. Democrats who supported slavery stayed in Democratic party. Just as racists stayed Democrats in south, despite leftist and revisionists today claim there was a imaginary "party switch". That means, all slaves in United States, some 4.5 million, at the brink of Civil war were owned by Democrats.

War Democrats were not against slavery, they were against Confederacy. Since they were pro slavery, they couldn't join Republican party, and those who supported Lincoln's Civil War policies joined Unionist party while avoiding being on "Republican" ticket. Therefore Lincoln's running mate was technically Unionist, formerly "War Democrat".

And you never did prove your case when I demanded documentation that "you couldn't join the Republicnan party if you were pro-slavery".

 

[Ame®icano]

Are you COMPLETELY incapable of following the thread, or is this just another desperate deflection attempt?

Not following thread?

Lets see...

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

My reply:

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

This is where you join the conversation...

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

I am the one who's not following???

Here is the whole thing...

View attachment 305444

Retard.

Actually that's the latter part of the nineteenth century, into the early part of the twentieth. That's what Post 50 was entirely about. And again, it was right in the middle of that transition that Strom Thurmond was born.

Now Strom Thurmond HIMSELF --- not his party --- did switch, in 1964, as a result of losing the fight to quash civil rights. Did the unthinkable and joined the Party of Lincoln. Many followed, but that's people switching, not parties.

And NO, that is NOT where I joined the conversation. I had already expounded on that transition --- again, post 50, which seems to have sailed clear over your hood.

Actually NOT.

You see red letters i highlighted above? That is exactly what Lysistrata and I were talking about.

latter part of the 20th Century

Moron.

McKinley and Bryan faced off in 1896. And again in 1900. That's the nineteenth century, not the 20th.

Read bold red letters from Lysistrata... I don't care what you're talking about, I was replying to him on the subject.

"two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century."

You missed it completely. Then accuse me of not being on subject. Loser.

I'm done with you.

 

[Pogo]

Are you COMPLETELY incapable of following the thread, or is this just another desperate deflection attempt?

Not following thread?

Lets see...

It's neither unpartriotic nor unconstitutional to decide against a holiday honoring those who fought for the confederacy. How could it be?

BTW: People shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century.

My reply:

"parties switched sides"

LOL

What, cops decided to be criminals, and criminals became cops?

This is where you join the conversation...

What are you, Mick Jagger now?
Pleased to meet you. Hope I guessed your name.

I am the one who's not following???

Here is the whole thing...

View attachment 305444

Retard.

Actually that's the latter part of the nineteenth century, into the early part of the twentieth. That's what Post 50 was entirely about. And again, it was right in the middle of that transition that Strom Thurmond was born.

Now Strom Thurmond HIMSELF --- not his party --- did switch, in 1964, as a result of losing the fight to quash civil rights. Did the unthinkable and joined the Party of Lincoln. Many followed, but that's people switching, not parties.

And NO, that is NOT where I joined the conversation. I had already expounded on that transition --- again, post 50, which seems to have sailed clear over your hood.

Actually NOT.

You see red letters i highlighted above? That is exactly what Lysistrata and I were talking about.

latter part of the 20th Century

Moron.

McKinley and Bryan faced off in 1896. And again in 1900. That's the nineteenth century, not the 20th. And that **IS** what YOU were posting about when you got here. Roll tape.

↑
Republican party is established to stop expansion of slavery into territories and to abolish the slavery. If you were proponent of slavery or slave owner, you could not join the party, and party was primarily joined by northern Protestants, blacks, workers, farmers, former Whigs and, yes... some Democrats who were against the slavery. Democrats who supported slavery stayed in Democratic party. Just as racists stayed Democrats in south, despite leftist and revisionists today claim there was a imaginary "party switch". That means, all slaves in United States, some 4.5 million, at the brink of Civil war were owned by Democrats.

War Democrats were not against slavery, they were against Confederacy. Since they were pro slavery, they couldn't join Republican party, and those who supported Lincoln's Civil War policies joined Unionist party while avoiding being on "Republican" ticket. Therefore Lincoln's running mate was technically Unionist, formerly "War Democrat".
Click to expand...
And you never did prove your case when I demanded documentation that "you couldn't join the Republican party if you were pro-slavery".

Read bold red letters from Lysistrata... I don't care what you're talking about, I was replying to him on the subject.

"two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century."

You missed it completely. Then accuse me of not being on subject. Loser.

I'm done with you.

"Him"?

READ YOUR OWN POST Dumbass. It's completely about the 19th century.

You're "done" because you got busted.

 

[Ame®icano]

Not following thread?

Lets see...

My reply:
This is where you join the conversation...

I am the one who's not following???

Here is the whole thing...

View attachment 305444

Retard.

Actually that's the latter part of the nineteenth century, into the early part of the twentieth. That's what Post 50 was entirely about. And again, it was right in the middle of that transition that Strom Thurmond was born.

Now Strom Thurmond HIMSELF --- not his party --- did switch, in 1964, as a result of losing the fight to quash civil rights. Did the unthinkable and joined the Party of Lincoln. Many followed, but that's people switching, not parties.

And NO, that is NOT where I joined the conversation. I had already expounded on that transition --- again, post 50, which seems to have sailed clear over your hood.

Actually NOT.

You see red letters i highlighted above? That is exactly what Lysistrata and I were talking about.

latter part of the 20th Century

Moron.

McKinley and Bryan faced off in 1896. And again in 1900. That's the nineteenth century, not the 20th. And that **IS** what YOU were posting about when you got here. Roll tape.

↑
Republican party is established to stop expansion of slavery into territories and to abolish the slavery. If you were proponent of slavery or slave owner, you could not join the party, and party was primarily joined by northern Protestants, blacks, workers, farmers, former Whigs and, yes... some Democrats who were against the slavery. Democrats who supported slavery stayed in Democratic party. Just as racists stayed Democrats in south, despite leftist and revisionists today claim there was a imaginary "party switch". That means, all slaves in United States, some 4.5 million, at the brink of Civil war were owned by Democrats.

War Democrats were not against slavery, they were against Confederacy. Since they were pro slavery, they couldn't join Republican party, and those who supported Lincoln's Civil War policies joined Unionist party while avoiding being on "Republican" ticket. Therefore Lincoln's running mate was technically Unionist, formerly "War Democrat".
Click to expand...
And you never did prove your case when I demanded documentation that "you couldn't join the Republican party if you were pro-slavery".

Read bold red letters from Lysistrata... I don't care what you're talking about, I was replying to him on the subject.

"two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century."

You missed it completely. Then accuse me of not being on subject. Loser.

I'm done with you.

"Him"?

READ YOUR OWN POST Dumbass. It's completely about the 19th century.

You're "done" because you got busted.

Read the red letters moron.

My reply to Lysistrata post was strictly to that.

 

[rightwinger]

Honoring traitors is patriotic?

 

[Pogo]

Actually that's the latter part of the nineteenth century, into the early part of the twentieth. That's what Post 50 was entirely about. And again, it was right in the middle of that transition that Strom Thurmond was born.

Now Strom Thurmond HIMSELF --- not his party --- did switch, in 1964, as a result of losing the fight to quash civil rights. Did the unthinkable and joined the Party of Lincoln. Many followed, but that's people switching, not parties.

And NO, that is NOT where I joined the conversation. I had already expounded on that transition --- again, post 50, which seems to have sailed clear over your hood.

Actually NOT.

You see red letters i highlighted above? That is exactly what Lysistrata and I were talking about.

latter part of the 20th Century

Moron.

McKinley and Bryan faced off in 1896. And again in 1900. That's the nineteenth century, not the 20th. And that **IS** what YOU were posting about when you got here. Roll tape.

↑
Republican party is established to stop expansion of slavery into territories and to abolish the slavery. If you were proponent of slavery or slave owner, you could not join the party, and party was primarily joined by northern Protestants, blacks, workers, farmers, former Whigs and, yes... some Democrats who were against the slavery. Democrats who supported slavery stayed in Democratic party. Just as racists stayed Democrats in south, despite leftist and revisionists today claim there was a imaginary "party switch". That means, all slaves in United States, some 4.5 million, at the brink of Civil war were owned by Democrats.

War Democrats were not against slavery, they were against Confederacy. Since they were pro slavery, they couldn't join Republican party, and those who supported Lincoln's Civil War policies joined Unionist party while avoiding being on "Republican" ticket. Therefore Lincoln's running mate was technically Unionist, formerly "War Democrat".
Click to expand...
And you never did prove your case when I demanded documentation that "you couldn't join the Republican party if you were pro-slavery".

Read bold red letters from Lysistrata... I don't care what you're talking about, I was replying to him on the subject.

"two parties switched sides and policies in the latter part of the 20th Century."

You missed it completely. Then accuse me of not being on subject. Loser.

I'm done with you.

"Him"?

READ YOUR OWN POST Dumbass. It's completely about the 19th century.

You're "done" because you got busted.

Read the red letters moron.

View attachment 305450

My reply to Lysistrata post was strictly to that.

So you're saying YOU derailed her to the nineteenth century?

Because that's what you wrote. Post 49 I believe it was. Same time I was writing post 50.
---- which is -- AGAIN -- when the parties "switched".