Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[bodecea]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

And the left has fought hard for those civil liberties, btw, FDR married his cousin...now there's a new deal for ya...don't know if ya ever saw a picture of her, but she was enough to give a normal man pause for considering options 2 and 3 on your list.

His 2nd cousin...totally legal still.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The spinner is yourself. Racist Southerners like you can celebrate all you want, I just don't think the celebration should be paid for with taxpayer dollars. I've been listening to the bullshit you are spinning and it stinks, do you really think most Americans are going to celebrate these racist traitors.

You did an excellent job of restating your position. Not that anyone doesn't understand it or get it.


What you did not do, was address my point.


What you are doing is not allowing Southerns to celebrate some aspects of their ancestors, and not others. This is a standard you only apply to them. Anyone else, you do not do this to.


That is hate and racism on your part. Your saying the word "racism" does not change that.

Celebrating to your hearts content, you just can't do it on the tax payer's dime.

Your rationalization for your actions are noted, and dismissed.


My point stands. You are holding whites to a standard you apply to no one else. That is racism. You are a racist.


That is what this is all about. For over 150 years, no one cared about the statues in the park, until anti-white racism grew strong enough to start throwing it's weight around.

I am not holding whites to anything, what part of the majority of these folks who want these statues and monuments gone are white. So what you are saying makes no sense. Does that mean whites are being racist against whites?

1. Yes, you are. YOu judge them based on a standard that you do not apply to others, and because of your judgement, you support demonizing them and attacking their heritage.

Tell me another group of people in this country that enslaved, maimed, raped, beat, lynched and murdered another group of people and are honored for it. Tell me another group of people who committed treason against the US and were honored for it.

2. What I say makes complete sense. You are stonewalling.

It only makes sense to you and a couple of the other forum racist.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

His 2nd cousin...totally legal still.

Who said it wasn't? has nothing to do with this discussion at all...the claim was "cousin" so your post just changes the direction of the argument RW was getting embarrassed by, and why didn't you mention this to RW when he originally made the claim about it being a part of southern culture? because is it had nothing to do with the claim? because it fits the/your narrative better than FDR did?...good job

 

[Correll]

Sure, you've never mentioned them. You've just insulted them, and maligned them, and supported tearing down culturally important statues of theirs.

Your actions, demonstrate your position, as I pointed out, above.

Linky-link?

LOL!!! What kind of silly troll boy game you playing? THIS THREAD you drooling moron.


Every other group can celebrate any heroes or events, and you don't go over their heroes or events and hold them up to today's moral standards and judge them and then hold the modern people responsible for the full monty of their heroes or events.

you pick and choose who to do that to. And your different standards seems to be RACE based.


WHITES, get harsher standards then any else.

That makes you a racist.

Definitions here, Wanker:

"Racism" means the belief that one race is superior to another.

"Linky-link" means you need to show evidence of your ass-sertion.

NEITHER ONE GOT DONE.

I know, stop the presses right. Quelle surprise.

When you hold that one race is inferior to another, such as not deserving the same treatment as all other races, and groups,

then you are racist against that group.

As you have demonstrated by holding Whites to a higher standard, then any other group.

You are a racist.

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah if you could, you know, go ahead and QUOTE where I did that, that'd be great.

Cue crickets.

I pointed out when you did in this thread, again and again. If you managed to not see when I did it then, what point is there in you requesting me to show you again?


Oh, is this more of those weird troll games you've been playing?


Whatever. I don't care about your games.


THe point remains.



When you hold that one race is inferior to another, such as not deserving the same treatment as all other races, and groups,

then you are racist against that group.

As you have demonstrated by holding Whites to a higher standard, then any other group.

You are a racist.

 

[Correll]

The nation as as a whole was moving that way, long led by the Republicans.


Without the dems flipping, we would still have continued moving this way, you dems would just have become less and less relevant.



As you should have.

Moving that way?
The attempt towards integration was met with terrorist attacks in the south

Correct. You do realize that what you said, does not conflict with what I said, right?

That is the complete opposite of your ridiculous claim that the nation was moving towards integration.......It wasn’t

If it was, returning black soldiers would have been treated as heroes instead of second class citizens

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.


You are acting like you think it did.


I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

 

[Correll]

You did an excellent job of restating your position. Not that anyone doesn't understand it or get it.


What you did not do, was address my point.


What you are doing is not allowing Southerns to celebrate some aspects of their ancestors, and not others. This is a standard you only apply to them. Anyone else, you do not do this to.


That is hate and racism on your part. Your saying the word "racism" does not change that.

Celebrating to your hearts content, you just can't do it on the tax payer's dime.

Your rationalization for your actions are noted, and dismissed.


My point stands. You are holding whites to a standard you apply to no one else. That is racism. You are a racist.


That is what this is all about. For over 150 years, no one cared about the statues in the park, until anti-white racism grew strong enough to start throwing it's weight around.

I am not holding whites to anything, what part of the majority of these folks who want these statues and monuments gone are white. So what you are saying makes no sense. Does that mean whites are being racist against whites?

1. Yes, you are. YOu judge them based on a standard that you do not apply to others, and because of your judgement, you support demonizing them and attacking their heritage.

Tell me another group of people in this country that enslaved, maimed, raped, beat, lynched and murdered another group of people and are honored for it. Tell me another group of people who committed treason against the US and were honored for it.

2. What I say makes complete sense. You are stonewalling.

It only makes sense to you and a couple of the other forum racist.

1. Indians.

2. **** you.

 

[rightwinger]

Moving that way?
The attempt towards integration was met with terrorist attacks in the south

Correct. You do realize that what you said, does not conflict with what I said, right?

That is the complete opposite of your ridiculous claim that the nation was moving towards integration.......It wasn’t

If it was, returning black soldiers would have been treated as heroes instead of second class citizens

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.


You are acting like you think it did.


I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

Some resistance?

The south declared all out war when asked to abandon segregation

 

[Correll]

Correct. You do realize that what you said, does not conflict with what I said, right?

That is the complete opposite of your ridiculous claim that the nation was moving towards integration.......It wasn’t

If it was, returning black soldiers would have been treated as heroes instead of second class citizens

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.


You are acting like you think it did.


I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

Some resistance?

The south declared all out war when asked to abandon segregation

No, it didn't. You are focusing on a few people, and using them to smear a vastly larger population.


Because you hate that population. Because you are a bigot.

 

[Terence Millar]

The Civil War was all about state's rights, and in its name many good people, soldiers and civilians, paid dearly for it.

 

[rightwinger]

That is the complete opposite of your ridiculous claim that the nation was moving towards integration.......It wasn’t

If it was, returning black soldiers would have been treated as heroes instead of second class citizens

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.


You are acting like you think it did.


I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

Some resistance?

The south declared all out war when asked to abandon segregation

No, it didn't. You are focusing on a few people, and using them to smear a vastly larger population.


Because you hate that population. Because you are a bigot.

Few people my ass. Whole communities fought against integration

Here they are screaming at a six year old black girl

A six year old black girl who needed federal marshals to protect her while she goes to a white school

 

[Correll]

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.


You are acting like you think it did.


I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

Some resistance?

The south declared all out war when asked to abandon segregation

No, it didn't. You are focusing on a few people, and using them to smear a vastly larger population.


Because you hate that population. Because you are a bigot.

Few people my ass. Whole communities fought against integration

Here they are screaming at a six year old black girl

A six year old black girl who needed federal marshals to protect her

Whole communities? I see like 12 people. How many people just stayed home because they were not that fired up about it?


This is my point. YOu point to this few people, and define not on that community, but the entire south.


YOu are doing the exact same thing, as a racist posting a newstory of a black criminal committing a crime and using it to smear the entire black population.


You are holding the group, responsible for the action of the few, or the one.


You are a bigot.

 

[rightwinger]

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

Some resistance?

The south declared all out war when asked to abandon segregation

No, it didn't. You are focusing on a few people, and using them to smear a vastly larger population.


Because you hate that population. Because you are a bigot.

Few people my ass. Whole communities fought against integration

Here they are screaming at a six year old black girl

A six year old black girl who needed federal marshals to protect her

Whole communities? I see like 12 people. How many people just stayed home because they were not that fired up about it?


This is my point. YOu point to this few people, and define not on that community, but the entire south.


YOu are doing the exact same thing, as a racist posting a newstory of a black criminal committing a crime and using it to smear the entire black population.


You are holding the group, responsible for the action of the few, or the one.


You are a bigot.

Sorry Klan Boy

I’m no longer playing your game of revisionist history on Civil Rights
You are a despicable pig

 

[Correll]

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

Some resistance?

The south declared all out war when asked to abandon segregation

No, it didn't. You are focusing on a few people, and using them to smear a vastly larger population.


Because you hate that population. Because you are a bigot.

Few people my ass. Whole communities fought against integration

Here they are screaming at a six year old black girl

A six year old black girl who needed federal marshals to protect her

Whole communities? I see like 12 people. How many people just stayed home because they were not that fired up about it?


This is my point. YOu point to this few people, and define not on that community, but the entire south.


YOu are doing the exact same thing, as a racist posting a newstory of a black criminal committing a crime and using it to smear the entire black population.


You are holding the group, responsible for the action of the few, or the one.


You are a bigot.

Sorry Klan Boy

I’m no longer playing your game of revisionist history on Civil Rights
You are a despicable pig

You are a coward and an asshole.


12 people do not define even their own "community", nor "the south".


You are a bigot, justifying his bigotry.


Did I mention, **** YOU? If not, then **** YOU NOW.


My point stands. THe nation as a whole was moving towards equality for blacks. LBJ, jumped on the bandwagon. He does not deserve credit for making it happen.


If anything, getting you people involved, tainted it.

 

[Pogo]

Linky-link?

LOL!!! What kind of silly troll boy game you playing? THIS THREAD you drooling moron.


Every other group can celebrate any heroes or events, and you don't go over their heroes or events and hold them up to today's moral standards and judge them and then hold the modern people responsible for the full monty of their heroes or events.

you pick and choose who to do that to. And your different standards seems to be RACE based.


WHITES, get harsher standards then any else.

That makes you a racist.

Definitions here, Wanker:

"Racism" means the belief that one race is superior to another.

"Linky-link" means you need to show evidence of your ass-sertion.

NEITHER ONE GOT DONE.

I know, stop the presses right. Quelle surprise.

When you hold that one race is inferior to another, such as not deserving the same treatment as all other races, and groups,

then you are racist against that group.

As you have demonstrated by holding Whites to a higher standard, then any other group.

You are a racist.

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah if you could, you know, go ahead and QUOTE where I did that, that'd be great.

Cue crickets.

I pointed out when you did in this thread, again and again. If you managed to not see when I did it then, what point is there in you requesting me to show you again?


Oh, is this more of those weird troll games you've been playing?


Whatever. I don't care about your games.


THe point remains.



When you hold that one race is inferior to another, such as not deserving the same treatment as all other races, and groups,

then you are racist against that group.

As you have demonstrated by holding Whites to a higher standard, then any other group.

You are a racist.

So you have nothing.

What a surprise.

Yawn.

 

[Ame®icano]

Japanese Americans were not just immigrants, they were citizens.

When exactly Democrats apologized to them for internment camps?

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Correct. He convinced jest enough racist Southern Democrats to vote for it, in order to "have blacks voting for Democrats next 200 years".

He offered essentially the same bill he voted against few years earlier.

 

[Ame®icano]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

You're talking about "liberalism". I don't think South prefers that flavor.

Just discussing Southern Heritage

Democrat's heritage.

 

[Pogo]

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Correct. He convinced jest enough racist Southern Democrats to vote for it, in order to "have blacks voting for Democrats next 200 years".

He offered essentially the same bill he voted against few years earlier.

That's another fake quote.
In fact blacks had already been voting Democratic. Since the 1930s before LBJ ever ran for office. And we covered that, profusely, when we broke down the infamous "party switch" canard.

 

[Pogo]

The Civil War was all about state's rights, and in its name many good people, soldiers and civilians, paid dearly for it.

"The Civil War was all about state's rights" --- and with the other side of their collective mouth they'll tell us the Lost Cause propaganda machine was ineffective.

 

[Ame®icano]

There is "one thing" that Southern parties had in common. They were all pro slavery parties, and after civil war mostly all emerged as Democrats. Even Northern Democrats under Douglas were pro slavery, although your argument is that he was for "popular sovereignty". I explained twice what that really means, but you rejected it.

Actually I explained what it means and I think you took it to a leap it didn't have. As noted above the Democrats were badly split by the same dynamic that collapsed the Whigs and started the Republicans (and also made the Know Nothings irrelevant). The Southern half of their party bolted and ran their own candidate. The pro-Slavery faction were the ones in the South, running Breckinridge. If Douglas had been on the same page they wouldn't have been running against each other nor would the Southern division have kicked the party out at Charleston in protest of the national party's position.

Actually, you explained it to what YOU want it to mean.

If you are against slavery, you are against slavery. Period.

If you are against slavery, you are not against slavery here, and for allowing slavery somewhere else, if somewhere else chose so. Therefore, if you're proponent of "popular sovereignty", you are not against slavery, and not being against slavery means, you are pro slavery.

 

[Ame®icano]

Put it this way; for the sake of argument, let's say US wants to admit Puerto Rico as 51st state. And although rape in US is illegal, under "popular sovereignty" doctrine, we gonna let Puerto Rico to decide if they want to allow rape to be legal in their state. Hey, it's their business, right?

Uhm, no. Those who are anti-rape, will not allow them to join the Union. And those who would let them decide about rape being legal... they're not really against rape, are they?

Bad analogy. Rape is not only already illegal in Puerto Rico, as it should be, but clearly an act of violence that was never legal anywhere. Popular Sovereignty meant something like what happened in Bleeding Kansas. It was obviously a bad idea simply because of the lengths the partisans would go to, as demonstrated. Kansas showed that leaving it up to the states wasn't going to work and stronger federal law would have to be applied to the question. Kansas in fact represented a microcosm of the War that followed it, and should have served as a warning. The Democrats' fault was in holding too fast to the position of smaller central government and "states' rights". That's (again) why Buchanan couldn't stop the War --- he was conservatively mired in that "states rights" position and unwilling to expand the power of the federal government.

It's not bad analogy, but your bad reasoning.

I know rape is illegal in Puerto Rico, that's why I said "for the sake of argument, let's say..." If you're not able to process that little, why are we talking at all? What if we replace "rape" with let's say "abortion"? For the sake of argument let's say that Puerto Rico is joining US as 51st state and per your "popular sovereignty" doctrine wants to keep their criminal abortion statute that prohibits abortion for reasons other than protecting the woman’s life. That is clearly in conflict with Roe v Wade, but hey, it's their decision to make. Right? No, you lefties would beat them into submission to drop the statute before they get admitted to the Union.