BLM Terrorist Charged With Felony Lynching

[sOurDieSel]

BLM Terrorist Convicted Of Felony Lynching Under California Law. (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=blm%20lynching)

TBN

[Hoozi]

k

[Pokesan]

felony lynching - "the taking by means of a riot of another person from the lawful custody of a peace officer."

there now noone has to post here

[sOurDieSel]

Typical, liberals condoning black people running around lynching people. Lynching people is bad m'kay.

[Daywolf]

Typical, liberals condoning black people running around lynching people. Lynching people is bad m'kay.
Nah, he just mad cuz when the Democrats first created the KKK, lynching meant what it meant. Now the English-ish language is so watered down and confusing.

This must be some form of aggressive obstruction of justice legal term.

And the person sounds like a real piece of work:
"Jasmine Richards is a militant black lesbian activist with a long history of political clashes with law enforcement. Richards was part of the Ferguson, Missouri, riots and was arrested in April of 2015 on two outstanding warrants for terrorist threats, assault, trespassing, and petty theft." from breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/04/exclusive-details-black-lives-matter-activist-convicted-lynching/)

[Pokesan]

Still don't get why the KKK thing matters.

One party has been actively courting white racists since the 70s and it's not the Democrats.

But thanks for the history lesson wise old DMT grampa

[Daywolf]

Still don't get why the KKK thing matters.

One party has been actively courting white racists since the 70s and it's not the Democrats.

But thanks for the history lesson wise old DMT grampa
How convenient, eh? History ends in the 70's for Pokesan, because he knows if he said 60's I'd mention the filibuster of the civil rights act, again.

The kkk sux hard, but they are not the terrorist group that was originally formed by the dems as the militant terrorist wing of the democratic party. Today they are just mostly liberal bible thumpers, from a wide array of political backgrounds. When I say liberal, I'm speaking of their progressive hermeneutics as the non-literalists they are (false doctrines).

And if we can only start in the 70's, and all history erased, then I suppose it was Jimmy Carter that invented antisemitism? And when I say antisemitism, I'm speaking of hating on the jews, specifically.

Oh but only "white racists" count, right.... because BLM and La Raza can in no way be racist? Because you know, ain't white, so... cant count.

I just wonder if you actually believe this stuff you say. Well not "say" just all reasoning points to. Too many levels of platitudes to just say outright, while everyone else is supposedly hiding their racism etc, but not you, nope, nope. But not that you invented it, you've just been brainwashed with it. After all, the establishment has invested considerable time and money researching propaganda to bend your will for their gain. It's actually pretty effective.

And I'm not a grandpa btw. I just have a grand paw.
Not even old, but older than you. You were like what, 5yo when EQ launched?

[Pokesan]

Which party do white racists support though?

[maskedmelon]

Which party do white racists support though?

Ooo, ooo, I have one too!

Which party do felons support?

^^

[Pokesan]

Ooo, ooo, I have one too!

Which party do felons support?

^^

What color collar? Ooh that's fun to say.

Don't distract Daywolf though, I've ALMOST got him on topic now.

[maskedmelon]

What color collar? Ooh that's fun to say.

Don't distract Daywolf though, I've ALMOST got him on topic now.

!

Shit!





Color collar....



Yeah it is, I guess ^^

[maskedmelon]

Oh! I got it...








Which party do black racists support?

[Aesop]

thought this was gonna be about the Bundy's

[Alarti0001]

It's like the general p99 shitposter isn't aware of the southern democrat vote shift. This goes back to that other thread where people whined about semantics Party doesn't equal ideology.

[maskedmelon]

It's like the general p99 shitposter isn't aware of the southern democrat vote shift. This goes back to that other thread where people whined about semantics Party doesn't equal ideology.

mad

[Daywolf]

Which party do white racists support though?

"We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better. . . . In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes." --Bill Clinton

Fulbright was a segregationist and a hero to the 83 day filibuster of the civil rights act, among the 99 democrats who did so. Oh yeah, and 2 republicans. In fact, as the south became republican, racism declined, well at least for "whites".

btw I have never been a republican either. If they were all racists, I'd certainly call it out, that's a fact. But it's easy to call it out in the democrat party, it's a long saturated history of it, even today, though they desperately try to whitewash the facts.

[Daywolf]

It's like the general p99 shitposter isn't aware of the southern democrat vote shift. This goes back to that other thread where people whined about semantics Party doesn't equal ideology.
Shitposter? I didn't see your previous posts here...
Anyway, that's part of the whitewashing. That's simply not true. When the dems lost the battle to defeat the civil rights act, it wasn't the deep south that moved republican, it was states like Texas, Florida, Carolina etc. that began the move. But as many in the deep south did move to republican, the racism became less. Or what, all the lynchings were during the 80's? No, any black conservative will tell you that the democrat party is all about racism, and in that they use race for gains, as they hold down minorities in poverty and moral decay. It's just the dems have stepped up their racism, pitting groups like BLM and La Raza against Americans, it's shameful.

I mean really, it's hilarious. You want to take cold hard historical facts, then point it at others speculatively, while ignoring the herd of elephants in the room. Don't fall for that crap, dems got you fooled. It's all about their power, they never let a good crisis go to waste, even if they need to invent it.

[Alarti0001]

mad

dumb

Shitposter? I didn't see your previous posts here...
Anyway, that's part of the whitewashing. That's simply not true. When the dems lost the battle to defeat the civil rights act, it wasn't the deep south that moved republican, it was states like Texas, Florida, Carolina etc. that began the move. But as many in the deep south did move to republican, the racism became less. Or what, all the lynchings were during the 80's? No, any black conservative will tell you that the democrat party is all about racism, and in that they use race for gains, as they hold down minorities in poverty and moral decay. It's just the dems have stepped up their racism, pitting groups like BLM and La Raza against Americans, it's shameful.

I mean really, it's hilarious. You want to take cold hard historical facts, then point it at others speculatively, while ignoring the herd of elephants in the room. Don't fall for that crap, dems got you fooled. It's all about their power, they never let a good crisis go to waste, even if they need to invent it.

1 How are the carolinas, texas and florida not considered the deep south? LOL.

If you want to cite cold hard facts... can you please include them in your posts?

[maskedmelon]

dumb



why you so mean? :c

[Daywolf]

dumb



1 How are the carolinas, texas and florida not considered the deep south? LOL.

If you want to cite cold hard facts... can you please include them in your posts?
Rim south. You didn't know like Texas has a low population of blacks? It's mostly whites and hispanics, much like the south-west is.

Deep south is Georgia, Alabama, S. Carolina, Mississippi, Luisiana. Arkansas can fit in there too. What's this nu-geography you speak of? Or is the nu-history, these states lynched most of teh blacks in the 80's after the repub party suddenly became racists after championing (over time) the liberty and civil rights of minorities for 100 years. You add nothing to this but your LOL's.

[Alarti0001]

Rim south. You didn't know like Texas has a low population of blacks? It's mostly whites and hispanics, much like the south-west is.

Deep south is Georgia, Alabama, S. Carolina, Mississippi, Luisiana. Arkansas can fit in there too. What's this nu-geography you speak of? Or is the nu-history, these states lynched most of teh blacks in the 80's after the repub party suddenly became racists after championing (over time) the liberty and civil rights of minorities for 100 years. You add nothing to this but your LOL's.

Cool revisionist history! Do you like to read books about if germany won the war too!?

[Daywolf]

Cool revisionist history! Do you like to read books about if germany won the war too!?
You bring nothin' just mean to people. At least mean and something is somethin. But nothing is just nothin. I don't think ya give 2-shitts one way or the other, much like most libs when it's not their single issue platform.

Fact is, BLM and La Raza is the dems modern day version of the KKK, history repeating itself, just as many dems just looked the other way.

[Alarti0001]

You bring nothin' just mean to people. At least mean and something is somethin. But nothing is just nothin. I don't think ya give 2-shitts one way or the other, much like most libs when it's not their single issue platform.

Fact is, BLM and La Raza is the dems modern day version of the KKK, history repeating itself, just as many dems just looked the other way.

You might want to look up the definition of fact. Could you please bring somethin'? You have words just no evidence.

[Daywolf]

You might want to look up the definition of fact. Could you please bring somethin'? You have words just no evidence.
What, that the BLM is a left racist hate group murdering people in the name of the dems and etc. If you don't already know that by now, there is nothing anyone can do for you at this point. You are just repeating the very same blind thing that happened with the creation of the KKK by the democrat party; dismiss their acts with pseudo-ignorance and justifications.

Murder and physical violence against other people is justifiable by racist hate groups when ________________.

btw my answer is:
Hell freezes over

[Nihilist_santa]

Cool revisionist history! Do you like to read books about if germany won the war too!?

I like the one book where they discussed Patton's letters to his friends and family describing how the US backed the wrong side in the war. This was after he was forced to allow allied soldiers mere miles from him to be captured by the red army to appease Stalin and usher in 40+ years of the iron curtain.

[Nihilist_santa]

You might want to look up the definition of fact. Could you please bring somethin'? You have words just no evidence.

Mentions facts and then post none. Ive only seen you copy paste some definitions. Where are all these facts you keep talking about? Did you sell them with some of your virtual goods?

[Daywolf]

I like the one book where they discussed Patton's letters to his friends and family describing how the US backed the wrong side in the war. This was after he was forced to allow allied soldiers mere miles from him to be captured by the red army to appease Stalin and usher in 40+ years of the iron curtain.
:D
/me tags santa and hops out of the ring for the evening, but not before doing this...


http://i.imgur.com/RC4kfVr.gif?noredirect
I'm sure I left some pieces for you.

[barrettdc1]

You are arguing with a guy who has the biggest libcuck, George Clooney, as his avatar. That right off the bat should raise a red flag that you are wasting your breath. George Clooney is a fucking tard.

[DMN]

You are arguing with a guy who has the biggest libcuck, George Clooney, as his avatar. That right off the bat should raise a red flag that you are wasting your breath. George Clooney is a fucking tard.

And lives in shitattle.

[AzzarTheGod]

And lives in shitattle.

u rdy 2 start this beef over kimbo again pal

[Blitzers]

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood


“It was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage, her tenacity, her vision … When I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I’m really in awe of her. There are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life, from the causes she launched and fought for and scarified for so greatly.”

Hillary Clinton founder of Lies

[maskedmelon]

I'm not sure I would really want word to go out that I want to exterminate the negro population either. Maybe we should do a poll?


That aside, Margaret Sanger was an ugly racist feminist prude.

[Blitzers]

I'm not sure I would really want word to go out that I want to exterminate the negro population either. Maybe we should do a poll?


That aside, Margaret Sanger was an ugly racist feminist prude.

But, but, Hillary loves her.

[Alarti0001]

Mentions facts and then post none. Ive only seen you copy paste some definitions. Where are all these facts you keep talking about? Did you sell them with some of your virtual goods?

My facts got deleted once a thread was deleted. The burden of proof is on the person making assertions. Do you even logic?(Its a rhetorical question I know you don't)

You are arguing with a guy who has the biggest libcuck, George Clooney, as his avatar. That right off the bat should raise a red flag that you are wasting your breath. George Clooney is a fucking tard.

He is also an actor and is a remnant from when alot of TMO members put Oceans 11 characters in their avatars. I don't support Clooney's politics. Sorry if its hard for you to separate two distinct concepts.

And lives in shitattle.

I used to live in Florida.. it didn't make me a conservative. I used to live in Mississippi It didn't make me a conservative. Also, Seattle is awesome, have you ever been?

[Nihilist_santa]

My facts got deleted once a thread was deleted. The burden of proof is on the person making assertions. Do you even logic?(Its a rhetorical question I know you don't)



He is also an actor and is a remnant from when alot of TMO members put Oceans 11 characters in their avatars. I don't support Clooney's politics. Sorry if its hard for you to separate two distinct concepts.



I used to live in Florida.. it didn't make me a conservative. I used to live in Mississippi It didn't make me a conservative. Also, Seattle is awesome, have you ever been?

I saw your deleted comments. There were no facts there you don't even source your information. Do you even debate bro? Also you made the claim that Daywolf was wrong yet you supplied no evidence just your word. The burden of proof would then be on you. You know to back up your claim that he is wrong and that the democrats after 100 years of oppressing minorities suddenly did a magic flip. The magic flip is your claim so supply some proof.

[Nihilist_santa]

It's like the general p99 shitposter isn't aware of the southern democrat vote shift. This goes back to that other thread where people whined about semantics Party doesn't equal ideology.

How do you explain the above. Party doesn't equal ideology? We arent talking about some Gatsby party but political parties you know with political ideologies. Seriously that is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard and you keep repeating it as if its gospel.

[Alarti0001]

How do you explain the above. Party doesn't equal ideology? We arent talking about some Gatsby party but political parties you know with political ideologies. Seriously that is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard and you keep repeating it as if its gospel.

Gospel is a bad description since there is no evidence that god or any religion is real.

I repeat it as if its fact.... because it is fact.

Democratic party doesn't mean anything the issues the political party support have changed over time. It's fact. Being Liberal has nothing to do with being a Democrat just like being Conservative has nothing to do with being a Republican. It's fact.

If you choose not to accept it that is of little concern to me.

[Nihilist_santa]

Gospel is a bad description since there is no evidence that god or any religion is real.

I repeat it as if its fact.... because it is fact.

Democratic party doesn't mean anything the issues the political party support have changed over time. It's fact. Being Liberal has nothing to do with being a Democrat just like being Conservative has nothing to do with being a Republican. It's fact.

If you choose not to accept it that is of little concern to me.

That was quite a gracious tail tucking. So in other words come in thread scream about proof then provide none. Get mad when called out and tell people its not your concern. See ya pal.

[Alarti0001]

I saw your deleted comments. There were no facts there you don't even source your information. Do you even debate bro? Also you made the claim that Daywolf was wrong yet you supplied no evidence just your word. The burden of proof would then be on you. You know to back up your claim that he is wrong and that the democrats after 100 years of oppressing minorities suddenly did a magic flip. The magic flip is your claim so supply some proof.

Information was source and the information was factual. Even if you stamp your feet really loud!.

Who said the Parties has a magic flip? It was a political realignment that happened over several decades.

1896: William Jennings Bryan integrated the Populist party into the democratic party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_(United_States)
The populist party was left-wing so the Democratic party which was then very right-wing picked up some lefties.

1912: Teddy Roosevelt lost the nomination of the Republican Party which was more left-wing (and mostly a reintegration of the old Whig party) at the time so he ran for president under the Progressive Party. Which weakens the loyalty of liberal republicans to their party.

1932: FDR runs as a democrat after adopting most of the Progressive party's platform.
Southern whites have supported the democratic party since the Civil War.

1964: LBJ Incorporates civil rights as a democratic party platform. Effectively switching the southern white vote in the future to the Republican party. You'll notice people likw George Wallace a long time segregationist running as an independent in '68. Then renouncing segregation to rejoin the democratic part later on. Many liberal politicians also switched from the Republican tickets to the democratic ticket in future elections.

Republicans used to be about big government, government responsibility to social programs etc. Democrats were conservatives, states rights, limited government.

There were still liberals identifying as repubs and conservatives identifying as democrats but they were minorities...until around 2000.

Ideology switched.


Sources for you Santa even though I know you won't read them. It's easier to just deny right?

Byron E. Shafer and Richard Johnston, The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (2009) p 173-4

K.C. MacKay, The Progressive Movement of 1924. New York: Columbia University Press, 1947.

Hart, Jeffrey (2006-02-09). The Making of the American Conservative Mind (television). Hanover, New Hampshire: C-SPAN.

Roger Chapman, Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia (2010) vol 1 Page 136

Alabama Governor George Wallace, gubernatorial history". Archives.state.al.us.

Carter, Dan T. (1995). The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 468.

McMillan, Joseph (October 1, 2010), Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 26th and 32nd Presidents of the United States, American Heraldry Society
Jump up ^ Morris 1979, p. 3.

Hart, Albert B.; Ferleger, Herbert R (1989). "Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia" (CD-ROM). Theodore Roosevelt Association. pp. 534–35.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ8-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

[Alarti0001]

That was quite a gracious tail tucking. So in other words come in thread scream about proof then provide none. Get mad when called out and tell people its not your concern. See ya pal.

You required proof. I provided... now its your turn or Daywolf. I expect to receive nothing from you though. :)

Quick think of some names to call me while you spin to some other off the wall topic.

[Nihilist_santa]

You required proof. I provided... now its your turn or Daywolf. I expect to receive nothing from you though. :)

Quick think of some names to call me while you spin to some other off the wall topic.

Off the wall topic? You just copy pasted from wikipedia (a non credible source )about something that has nothing to do with the OP. Dude everyone is on to your tactics.

Your overall point and the reason you copy pasted bullshit is to say in plain english that the democrats aren't the racist party they used to be. Thats what you are trying to say. Yet you ignore one of the racist leaders of a democratic party supporting anti-white anti-police black advocacy group being arrested for inciting riots, lynching, and other charges. See that isn't from wikipedia that is from the OP which is sourcing public record. That my friend is a fact.

[Alarti0001]

Off the wall topic? You just copy pasted from wikipedia (a non credible source )about something that has nothing to do with the OP. Dude everyone is on to your tactics.


Even if you stamp your feet really loud!.



Your overall point and the reason you copy pasted bullshit is to say in plain english that the democrats aren't the racist party they used to be. Thats what you are trying to say. Yet you ignore one of the racist leaders of a democratic party supporting anti-white anti-police black advocacy group being arrested for inciting riots, lynching, and other charges. So in other words come in thread scream about proof then provide none. Get mad when called out See that isn't from wikipedia that is from the OP which is sourcing public record. That my friend is a fact.

Where did I copy and paste from Wiki? Prove that. Also, prove your other assertion you saying things are facts.

One thing you did prove though is you didn't read the sources and you still can't support your statements. You required proof. I provided... now its your turn or Daywolf. I expect to receive nothing from you though. :)

Quick think of some names to call me while you spin to some other off the wall topic.

Let me know when you're done frothing and offer any form of substantive discussion. I'll be waiting kiddo.

[Nihilist_santa]

^ Mad and butthurt. Still deflecting from the OP as usual. Starting to think you are a narcissist.

[Alarti0001]

^ Mad and butthurt. Still deflecting from the OP as usual. Starting to think you are a narcissist.

You asked me to prove my point. I did. You have yet to prove anything. Now all you can do is try to call me names?

You're exposed santa. Go educate yourself and comeback when you can offer any kind of challenge.

[Nihilist_santa]

You asked me to prove my point. I did. You have yet to prove anything. Now all you can do is try to call me names?

You're exposed santa. Go educate yourself and comeback when you can offer any kind of challenge.

Nah bro the world doesn't work like that. You talk a lot about facts I just wanted to see you post some. I didn't make any claims regarding the OP (only regarding you) til my last post which was backed by fact. Everything you have said has been to distract from the OP and you wasted a bunch of your own time talking about shit that has little to do with the OP and is refuted by the OP and other recent violent acts from a particular party.

Im sure whatever you come back with next will totally be on topic :rolleyes:

[heartbrand]

I am a republican

[Lune]

You just copy pasted from wikipedia (a non credible source )

Didn't read this thread but just chiming in to say wikipedia is a perfectly credible source for stupid online discussions in off topic forums of teenaged elf sims. We aren't writing Phd dissertations, and whatever inaccuracies exist in whatever you are pulling from wikipedia is overshadowed by the way people brutalize logic on this forum.

[Nihilist_santa]

Didn't read this thread but just chiming in to say wikipedia is a perfectly credible source for stupid online discussions in off topic forums of teenaged elf sims. We aren't writing Phd dissertations, and whatever inaccuracies exist in whatever you are pulling from wikipedia is overshadowed by the way people brutalize logic on this forum.

Im aware of that but allaharti is someone who tosses around the word fact authoritatively so I thought he might provide something with some meat to it rather than a publicly edited database.

[Lune]

You have yet to prove anything.

yet to prove anything.

prove

Prove it.

http://i.imgur.com/skYOFwB.gif

[Nihilist_santa]

I am a republican

Heartbrand has earned his honorary Aryan title like Hitler's driver. He shall be spared in the coming purges.

[maskedmelon]

Information was source and the information was factual. Even if you stamp your feet really loud!.

Who said the Parties has a magic flip? It was a political realignment that happened over several decades.

1896: William Jennings Bryan integrated the Populist party into the democratic party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_(United_States)
The populist party was left-wing so the Democratic party which was then very right-wing picked up some lefties.

1912: Teddy Roosevelt lost the nomination of the Republican Party which was more left-wing (and mostly a reintegration of the old Whig party) at the time so he ran for president under the Progressive Party. Which weakens the loyalty of liberal republicans to their party.

1932: FDR runs as a democrat after adopting most of the Progressive party's platform.
Southern whites have supported the democratic party since the Civil War.

1964: LBJ Incorporates civil rights as a democratic party platform. Effectively switching the southern white vote in the future to the Republican party. You'll notice people likw George Wallace a long time segregationist running as an independent in '68. Then renouncing segregation to rejoin the democratic part later on. Many liberal politicians also switched from the Republican tickets to the democratic ticket in future elections.

Republicans used to be about big government, government responsibility to social programs etc. Democrats were conservatives, states rights, limited government.

There were still liberals identifying as repubs and conservatives identifying as democrats but they were minorities...until around 2000.

Ideology switched.


Sources for you Santa even though I know you won't read them. It's easier to just deny right?

Byron E. Shafer and Richard Johnston, The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (2009) p 173-4

K.C. MacKay, The Progressive Movement of 1924. New York: Columbia University Press, 1947.

Hart, Jeffrey (2006-02-09). The Making of the American Conservative Mind (television). Hanover, New Hampshire: C-SPAN.

Roger Chapman, Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia (2010) vol 1 Page 136

Alabama Governor George Wallace, gubernatorial history". Archives.state.al.us.

Carter, Dan T. (1995). The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 468.

McMillan, Joseph (October 1, 2010), Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 26th and 32nd Presidents of the United States, American Heraldry Society
Jump up ^ Morris 1979, p. 3.

Hart, Albert B.; Ferleger, Herbert R (1989). "Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia" (CD-ROM). Theodore Roosevelt Association. pp. 534–35.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ8-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

Good post. Lots of new information for me and I'll take your word on all of it.

That said, I do not think the conclusion that "ideologies switched" is necessarily accurate. While some or even most components may have swapped, the openly racist platform of past Democratic Party was not adopted by the Republican Party. The southern democrat voter shift can most reasonably be explained as a product of contempt for the passage of the civil rights act, inaccurately credited to the Democratic Party.

[Pokesan]

Good post. Lots of new information for me and I'll take your word on all of it.

That said, I do not think the conclusion that "ideologies switched" is necessarily accurate. While some or even most components may have swapped, the openly racist platform of past Democratic Party was not adopted by the Republican Party. The southern democrat voter shift can most reasonably be explained as a product of contempt for the passage of the civil rights act, inaccurately credited to the Democratic Party.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

gadzooks!

[maskedmelon]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

gadzooks!

What are you pointing out? That not only 3x as many democrats opposed the bill as republicans, but also that they opposed it by a much larger percentage than republicans?

[Nihilist_santa]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

gadzooks!

The topic is prominent leader of racist terrorist organization tied to democrat party in the current year also first black convicted of lynching.

Please keep up.

[Pokesan]

What are you pointing out? That not only 3x as many democrats opposed the bill as republicans, but also that they opposed it by a much larger percentage than republicans?

look in the yeas column

which number is bigger?

[Nihilist_santa]

look in the yeas column

which number is bigger?

You do realize each party doesn't get an equal number of seats correct?

[maskedmelon]

look in the yeas column

which number is bigger?

You don't look at unit prices when you shop for groceries, do you?

[Pokesan]

You do realize each party doesn't get an equal number of seats correct?

yes. are you saying sanders or lieberman were solely responsible for the passage of any legislation they voted in favor of, when they were independents?

:confused:

[Pokesan]

You don't look at unit prices when you shop for groceries, do you?

inaccurately credited to the Democratic Party.

?

[maskedmelon]

?

This is my point.

[Pokesan]

This is my point.

are you joking?

[Alarti0001]

Good post. Lots of new information for me and I'll take your word on all of it.

That said, I do not think the conclusion that "ideologies switched" is necessarily accurate. While some or even most components may have swapped, the openly racist platform of past Democratic Party was not adopted by the Republican Party. The southern democrat voter shift can most reasonably be explained as a product of contempt for the passage of the civil rights act, inaccurately credited to the Democratic Party.

Sure open racism became politically dangerous thanks to the black vote. The question originally was which party do white racists support. At least regarding racism.
However, there was plenty of subtext regarding pro-segregation etc. Goldwater, Wallace etc.

But to your point this is why semantics matter. Yay the republicans had Lincoln, and originally Teddy Roosevelt and they abolished slavery... however its just a party. The ideas that represented those presidents and actions are liberal. Which I don't think most would call the republican party today.

People get tied up in red vs blue and they lose sight of the truth. Santa is a prime example.

[Alarti0001]

Nah bro the world doesn't work like that. You talk a lot about facts I just wanted to see you post some. I didn't make any claims regarding the OP (only regarding you) til my last post which was backed by fact. Everything you have said has been to distract from the OP and you wasted a bunch of your own time talking about shit that has little to do with the OP and is refuted by the OP and other recent violent acts from a particular party.

Im sure whatever you come back with next will totally be on topic :rolleyes:


I'm only responding to you Santa... you asked for me to prove a point now you call it a distraction? It seems you might be leading this distraction then. I have yet to see Daywolf prove their assertion. So its not really distracting until you or daywolf prove your statements. I'll even let you use wikipedia. Can you find proof on wikipedia blind_santa?

Im aware of that but allaharti is someone who tosses around the word fact authoritatively so I thought he might provide something with some meat to it rather than a publicly edited database.

I sent links to books, websites and e-books? Why are you hung up on the 2-3 wiki links ? Wikipedia doesn't disqualify information. Saying something isn't true because wikipedia is logical fallacy. You're just too lazy to learn :P Or scared.

[Nihilist_santa]

I'm only responding to you Santa... you asked for me to prove a point now you call it a distraction? It seems you might be leading this distraction then. I have yet to see Daywolf prove their assertion. So its not really distracting until you or daywolf prove your statements. I'll even let you use wikipedia. Can you find proof on wikipedia blind_santa?



I sent links to books, websites and e-books? Why are you hung up on the 2-3 wiki links ? Wikipedia doesn't disqualify information. Saying something isn't true because wikipedia is logical fallacy. You're just too lazy to learn :P Or scared.

So for anyone who doesnt want to read allaharti's circle jerk I will paraphrase so we can get back to the OP he is desperate to avoid.

"Uh duh democrats cant b raycisss cuz dey wuz da rayciss in da past"

Again allaharti would you like to address the racial violence and identity politics being perpetuated by the democrat party and its adherents as it pertains to the OP and other recent documented acts of racial violence in the current year.

[AzzarTheGod]

nihilist santa has my perpetual respect and attention for taking it to allahrti.

just wanted to go on the record

[iruinedyourday]

Love that SD just posted a google search link, which tanks to the internet has a top link from Democracy Now.

So sour deasil just fucking shared a Democracy Now link. Welcome to the fucking far left you huge pussy, i hope you enjoy your calming talk radio shows from this point forward.

[maskedmelon]

Sure open racism became politically dangerous thanks to the black vote. The question originally was which party do white racists support. At least regarding racism.
However, there was plenty of subtext regarding pro-segregation etc. Goldwater, Wallace etc.

But to your point this is why semantics matter. Yay the republicans had Lincoln, and originally Teddy Roosevelt and they abolished slavery... however its just a party. The ideas that represented those presidents and actions are liberal. Which I don't think most would call the republican party today.

People get tied up in red vs blue and they lose sight of the truth. Santa is a prime example.

You must realize that while maybe accurate, your classical view of liberalism differs markedly from contemporary American liberalism. I don't think most people understand the differences enough to engage you in any meaningful way.

How about we discuss specific issues and the merits of each?

[maskedmelon]

I should add that I say that because I agree with your point on semantics and ideology. I just don't think anything will come of the discussion as long as it remains so broad ^^

Ideology is useful, because it allows is to save time by not thinking about specific topics, but detest it for that very reason.

[Alarti0001]

Nah, he just mad cuz when the Democrats first created the KKK, lynching meant what it meant. Now the English-ish language is so watered down and confusing.

This must be some form of aggressive obstruction of justice legal term.

And the person sounds like a real piece of work:
"Jasmine Richards is a militant black lesbian activist with a long history of political clashes with law enforcement. Richards was part of the Ferguson, Missouri, riots and was arrested in April of 2015 on two outstanding warrants for terrorist threats, assault, trespassing, and petty theft." from breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/04/exclusive-details-black-lives-matter-activist-convicted-lynching/)

Still don't get why the KKK thing matters.

One party has been actively courting white racists since the 70s and it's not the Democrats.

But thanks for the history lesson wise old DMT grampa

Shitposter? I didn't see your previous posts here...
Anyway, that's part of the whitewashing. That's simply not true. When the dems lost the battle to defeat the civil rights act, it wasn't the deep south that moved republican, it was states like Texas, Florida, Carolina etc. that began the move. But as many in the deep south did move to republican, the racism became less. Or what, all the lynchings were during the 80's? No, any black conservative will tell you that the democrat party is all about racism, and in that they use race for gains, as they hold down minorities in poverty and moral decay. It's just the dems have stepped up their racism, pitting groups like BLM and La Raza against Americans, it's shameful.

I mean really, it's hilarious. You want to take cold hard historical facts, then point it at others speculatively, while ignoring the herd of elephants in the room. Don't fall for that crap, dems got you fooled. It's all about their power, they never let a good crisis go to waste, even if they need to invent it.

So for anyone who doesnt want to read allaharti's circle jerk I will paraphrase so we can get back to the OP he is desperate to avoid.

"Uh duh democrats cant b raycisss cuz dey wuz da rayciss in da past"

Again allaharti would you like to address the racial violence and identity politics being perpetuated by the democrat party and its adherents as it pertains to the OP and other recent documented acts of racial violence in the current year.

Santa do try to keep up. I never said democrats can't be racist. I was in a discussion you either didn't or weren't capable of following along with.

Racism is natural. It comes from the fear center in our brain (Amygdala) that tells us different means potentially dangerous. Which is why conservatives are more prone to Apocalypse belief, racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia. The conservative mind based on numerous autopsies were found to have larger than average amygdala.
Stop being so scared.

Anyways, to the point you seem to be trying to make. The democratic party, you can be sure isn't supporting racism or racial violence. Trying to compare the KKK to BLM is horrifically stupid. BLM has some dumbass members, this is absolutely true... those are outliers though. KKK members may have had a few reasonable people... those were outliers too.

Trying to blame an entire nation, culture, ethnic group, or political movement based on the actions of the few is idiotic... and is representative of what I wrote of earlier regarding biological fear reactions.

[Alarti0001]

You must realize that while maybe accurate, your classical view of liberalism differs markedly from contemporary American liberalism. I don't think most people understand the differences enough to engage you in any meaningful way.

How about we discuss specific issues and the merits of each?

Its not classical... if it still exists in the rest of the world. The word has been re-labeled because Neolib is a loaded term. Basically, word reprogramming so they can shift the inherent meaning of the word. Makes it easier to get votes while not representing what you should stand for. When someone calls Hillary Clinton a liberal... it just shows they repeat the media and have no understanding of her voting history or past actions. Hillary is hard right.

[Pokesan]

Its not classical... if it still exists in the rest of the world. The word has been re-labeled because Neolib is a loaded term. Basically, word reprogramming so they can shift the inherent meaning of the word. Makes it easier to get votes while not representing what you should stand for. When someone calls Hillary Clinton a liberal... it just shows they repeat the media and have no understanding of her voting history or past actions. Hillary is hard right.

extremely good point

[Daywolf]

Information was source and the information was factual. Even if you stamp your feet really loud!.

Who said the Parties has a magic flip? It was a political realignment that happened over several decades.

1896: William Jennings Bryan integrated the Populist party into the democratic party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Party_(United_States)
The populist party was left-wing so the Democratic party which was then very right-wing picked up some lefties.

1912: Teddy Roosevelt lost the nomination of the Republican Party which was more left-wing (and mostly a reintegration of the old Whig party) at the time so he ran for president under the Progressive Party. Which weakens the loyalty of liberal republicans to their party.

1932: FDR runs as a democrat after adopting most of the Progressive party's platform.
Southern whites have supported the democratic party since the Civil War.

1964: LBJ Incorporates civil rights as a democratic party platform. Effectively switching the southern white vote in the future to the Republican party. You'll notice people likw George Wallace a long time segregationist running as an independent in '68. Then renouncing segregation to rejoin the democratic part later on. Many liberal politicians also switched from the Republican tickets to the democratic ticket in future elections.

Republicans used to be about big government, government responsibility to social programs etc. Democrats were conservatives, states rights, limited government.

There were still liberals identifying as repubs and conservatives identifying as democrats but they were minorities...until around 2000.

Ideology switched.


Sources for you Santa even though I know you won't read them. It's easier to just deny right?

Byron E. Shafer and Richard Johnston, The End of Southern Exceptionalism: Class, Race, and Partisan Change in the Postwar South (2009) p 173-4

K.C. MacKay, The Progressive Movement of 1924. New York: Columbia University Press, 1947.

Hart, Jeffrey (2006-02-09). The Making of the American Conservative Mind (television). Hanover, New Hampshire: C-SPAN.

Roger Chapman, Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia (2010) vol 1 Page 136

Alabama Governor George Wallace, gubernatorial history". Archives.state.al.us.

Carter, Dan T. (1995). The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 468.

McMillan, Joseph (October 1, 2010), Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 26th and 32nd Presidents of the United States, American Heraldry Society
Jump up ^ Morris 1979, p. 3.

Hart, Albert B.; Ferleger, Herbert R (1989). "Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia" (CD-ROM). Theodore Roosevelt Association. pp. 534–35.

https://books.google.com/books?id=bJ8-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965Where did you get that timeline? Because it wasn't in the link you inserted in there with it, looks like your opinions which don't even google up in quotations apart from this forum. Not even the dates... then at the end just a jumble of almost random wikipedia links it would take over an hour to try to match your posts up with if it is even there. Ahhh wikipedia, where I think the quote originated "Never believe everything you read off the internet" --Abraham Lincoln.

Mellons is right though, with all the various things being dropped in (I know the tactic), it will never come to any consensus. But I'll remake my points as simply as I can:

1. Democrats have a long standing history of racism.
a. Created the KKK
b. Filibustered the civil rights act
2. Democrats still have a racist standing.
a. Does not denounce La Raza as a race hate group
b. Does not denounce BLM as a race hate group

Clear enough? All the shitposting detours into 1000 things to endlessly debate over. But you seem to admit that at sooome point, the Dems just didn't have it all together. But you somehow think things have changed, but really they haven't (see outline).

[Nihilist_santa]

Its not classical... if it still exists in the rest of the world. The word has been re-labeled because Neolib is a loaded term. Basically, word reprogramming so they can shift the inherent meaning of the word. Makes it easier to get votes while not representing what you should stand for. When someone calls Hillary Clinton a liberal... it just shows they repeat the media and have no understanding of her voting history or past actions. Hillary is hard right.

Which party represents american liberalism? Which party will American liberals vote for? Which party does BLM and groups like La Raza support? You can use your doublespeak bullshit all you want man to try to distance yourself but we see it for what it is. Here is a "fact" from Wikipedia since you invited me to use that source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party

You see its a two party system in America. You didnt have to come in here and devote so many pages to just say "Those guys dont represent my views" but I dont think thats the case or you wouldnt get so butthurt. I think they just make you and your party look bad and this is just typical leftist(see you dont have to get your panties in a bunch) spin.

[Daywolf]

Trying to compare the KKK to BLM is horrifically stupid.
Oh BS! Why, because as like Pok3& went off the rails to redefine the issue of racism as white racism? in that La Raza and BLM is nothing about race hate. And I'm not talking just an opinion of racism, you can have that opinion if you want, as long as you don't turn it physical or openly(publicly) incite others to.

And that is what La Raza and BLM does. Something even the KKK long since gave up, so in that yes how can BLM be compared to the KKK? It is horrifically stupid, because the BLM and La Raza are militant hate groups that will f u up in the here and now! They call for the murder of people, and do it. You are actually going to sit there and defend that shit? Say it's only a few? That's total BS! Just a cop-out of any personal responsibility.

Yeah in the present, any comparative view between BLM, La Raza and the KKK is "horrifically stupid", but what we are actually talking about is the KKK then and these new groups now. The comparative is that they were all created by/from the democrat party.

Where is the Republicans new and improved militant race hate groups? The Tea Party?!? lol

[Alarti0001]

Where did you get that timeline? Because it wasn't in the link you inserted in there with it, looks like your opinions which don't even google up in quotations apart from this forum. Not even the dates... then at the end just a jumble of almost random wikipedia links it would take over an hour to try to match your posts up with if it is even there. Ahhh wikipedia, where I think the quote originated "Never believe everything you read off the internet" --Abraham Lincoln.

Mellons is right though, with all the various things being dropped in (I know the tactic), it will never come to any consensus. But I'll remake my points as simply as I can:

1. Democrats have a long standing history of racism.
a. Created the KKK
b. Filibustered the civil rights act
2. Democrats still have a racist standing.
a. Does not denounce La Raza as a race hate group
b. Does not denounce BLM as a race hate group

Clear enough? All the shitposting detours into 1000 things to endlessly debate over. But you seem to admit that at sooome point, the Dems just didn't have it all together. But you somehow think things have changed, but really they haven't (see outline).

Wolf I'm sorry to say the timeline is listed in those links... just not put together on one page.. you may.. need to read. I know difficult. Perhaps you'll learn something though.

The democrats who created the KKK would feel at home in the modern republican party. U dum bruh

[Alarti0001]

Oh BS! Why, because as like Pok3& went off the rails to redefine the issue of racism as white racism? in that La Raza and BLM is nothing about race hate. And I'm not talking just an opinion of racism, you can have that opinion if you want, as long as you don't turn it physical or openly(publicly) incite others to.

And that is what La Raza and BLM does. Something even the KKK long since gave up, so in that yes how can BLM be compared to the KKK? It is horrifically stupid, because the BLM and La Raza are militant hate groups that will f u up in the here and now! They call for the murder of people, and do it. You are actually going to sit there and defend that shit? Say it's only a few? That's total BS! Just a cop-out of any personal responsibility.

Yeah in the present, any comparative view between BLM, La Raza and the KKK is "horrifically stupid", but what we are actually talking about is the KKK then and these new groups now. The comparative is that they were all created by/from the democrat party.

Where is the Republicans new and improved militant race hate groups? The Tea Party?!? lol


Are you even sane? Can you please support any of your statements... and no Divine Providence does not count.

[Nihilist_santa]

http://i.imgur.com/L9x0uJX.png

Taken from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism

The SPLC is garbage and even they show that white hate groups and right leaning hate groups have been on the decline while black seperatist groups are on the rise.

Top states for hate groups seems to blow away Allaharti's "deep south" theory.

http://i.imgur.com/5EYfcgs.png

That site has tons of info to digest and is heavily biased but even they dont show the picture Allaharti is trying to make as matter of fact they even pull the same BS trying to minimize BLM violence and justify as a reaction to institutionalized racism and still contradicts Allaharti. When we consider the KKK being a leftist hate group it seems that the left is far and away the ideology of hate.

[Daywolf]

Wolf I'm sorry to say the timeline is listed in those links... just not put together on one page.. you may.. need to read. I know difficult. Perhaps you'll learn something though.
Oh if we are going to play it this way now, here I'll back up every word I say and every opinion formed right here (https://www.loc.gov/). What, don't have time to read it? You might learn something... something ... something ... But it's right there man, I made a link, you gotta just find it.

Are you even sane? Can you please support any of your statements... and no Divine Providence does not count.About what? You seem to have a G on your cape super hero, stands for Generic man I guess.

https://empireherald.com/man-arrested-after-police-find-19-white-female-bodies-in-freezers-with-black-lives-matter-carved-into-skin/
https://www.intellihub.com/100-proof-that-black-lives-matter-protesters-are-actively-killing-cops/
https://youtu.be/b-dr_IhQu-I 'What Do We Want, Dead Cops'
https://youtu.be/eo90MirkK_k "sub-human creeps"
https://youtu.be/1FTt8UUvCPs La Raza: The Hidden Hand Of Hate
https://youtu.be/_vUrAMxmO_A we are your friends
I can go on, would fill pages and pages.

[Pokesan]

http://i.imgur.com/L9x0uJX.png

Taken from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism

The SPLC is garbage and even they show that white hate groups and right leaning hate groups have been on the decline while black seperatist groups are on the rise.



You badly misunderstand the information this chart is presenting!

[iruinedyourday]

everytime i post in one of these threads I come back and the same 3 people have taken it 6 pages past by the time I get back to it.

[Daywolf]

everytime i post in one of these threads I come back and the same 3 people have taken it 6 pages past by the time I get back to it.
More than 3 http://www.project1999.com/forums/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=245117
Its mostly santa and Atari ... I swear I always see Atari whenever I see his nameme. I was tied with Pok3& until this post. I definitely recall you seriously needing to attend posters anonymous on quite a few threads, especially when Kaga was around. Some of those threads were even worth spectator reading eheh.
===


And to add to what I've said on the issue, don't get me wrong, I don't justify the kkk, not then and not now. Like I said, they are stuck in a false doctrine, which explaining would require religious/doctrinal discussion which I mostly avoid in this forum. This is true in BLM too, some of the hate generated is coming from the pulpit. Rev Wright is a good example of that, but only one example while there are many. The hate comes from a lot of places though, and when united just feeds upon itself into a frenzy. But what the matter is is how they deal with it, any you see it all over the news today.

[Alarti0001]

http://i.imgur.com/L9x0uJX.png

Taken from https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism

The SPLC is garbage and even they show that white hate groups and right leaning hate groups have been on the decline while black seperatist groups are on the rise.

Top states for hate groups seems to blow away Allaharti's "deep south" theory.

http://i.imgur.com/5EYfcgs.png

That site has tons of info to digest and is heavily biased but even they dont show the picture Allaharti is trying to make as matter of fact they even pull the same BS trying to minimize BLM violence and justify as a reaction to institutionalized racism and still contradicts Allaharti. When we consider the KKK being a leftist hate group it seems that the left is far and away the ideology of hate.

What was my deep south theory? That was in relation to the party flip?
None of this points to BLM as a hate group tho. U dum? yep

You badly misunderstand the information this chart is presenting!

[maskedmelon]

Its not classical... if it still exists in the rest of the world. The word has been re-labeled because Neolib is a loaded term. Basically, word reprogramming so they can shift the inherent meaning of the word. Makes it easier to get votes while not representing what you should stand for. When someone calls Hillary Clinton a liberal... it just shows they repeat the media and have no understanding of her voting history or past actions. Hillary is hard right.

Oh, stop being a contrarian! :p Classical doesn't mean extinct (can debate it if you like). We can call it whatever you like though. Call it True Liberalism or the Enlightend Path if you like. The point is remains that your use of the word contrasts with conventional usage (especially when you label Hillary as [i[hard[/i] right. Right now your argument is like insisting faggot isn't a slur for a gay person or a disparaging label for a male you don't like. It's really a bundle if sticks! You guys don't know what you are talking about!

Labeling Hillary hard right seems to originate with restricting left-right with "economic powers" as you previously indicated. Right or wrong, people regularly associate right with limited government and left with expansive government. Hillary leans left in that regard. If you are making the case that she leans right because she is a corporatist and therefore I'm support of an unrestricted market, I won't disagree in that context. However if we accept that that makes her right leaning we would have to associate all of her social policy as authoritarian, which I think makes sense also. So Hillary is a hard-right authoritarian?

Am I following you, or are you just trolling?



On a side note it is disturbing that autocorrect on my iPhone corrected a typo of Hillary to chill art....

[Nihilist_santa]

What was my deep south theory? That was in relation to the party flip?
None of this points to BLM as a hate group tho. U dum? yep

Nah bro I dont think you get it. I mean you say a lot but reality says another thing entirely. This is what I meant about SPLC being garbage and biased. You say SPLC says BLM isnt a hate group but then SPLC says that a White Lives Matter movement is rayciss and is a hate group. Notice SPLC really goes after people who speak out against Jews or Gays. In the stuff I posted previously it goes out of its way to separate BLM from other black separatist groups because those other groups "dont like da jews" . I imagine it rustles all of the SPLC's Jew lawyers.

See if white people try to form a movement to look after their own interest its called racist. If minorities do it its empowerment. People are tired of the doublespeak and they know exactly what is going on around them and which party/ideology is responsible. I know you enjoy the last word so please explain how one group is racist and the other is not.

[maskedmelon]

It's only hate if you belong to a group that is winning. Otherwise it is indignation.

[Nihilist_santa]

It's only hate if you belong to a group that is winning. Otherwise it is indignation.

http://i.imgur.com/tnKN4Lv.jpg

[Pokesan]

like 70% of ur chart is white good job idiot

[Ahldagor]

everytime i post in one of these threads I come back and the same 3 people have taken it 6 pages past by the time I get back to it.

Too much toilet paper in the toilet bowl. Alarti tries to stay on point but gets dragged into the tangential, avoidance, and round about rhetoric that a lot fall into whoch starts from the internal notion of that poster is stupid and I am smart thus they must be argued with.

[maskedmelon]

like 70% of ur chart is white good job idiot

Almost like it is correlated with racial distribution in the US... Interesting.

[Pokesan]

Almost like it is correlated with racial distribution in the US... Interesting.

Does your local farmers market have fresh racists for a good price per lb? Discount for bulk orders?

[maskedmelon]

Does your local farmers market have fresh racists for a good price per lb? Discount for bulk orders?

I am not sure, I've never needed one. I have noticed that they are always sold out though. Never enough to meet the demand apparently. Despite their unpleasant nature they seem to be a popular commodity of convenience.

[sOurDieSel]

Some more facts to rustle you libcucks:

[Pokesan]

Some more facts to rustle you libcucks:

please link to the source report, I'm having trouble finding it!

[Pokesan]

I am not sure, I've never needed one. I have noticed that they are always sold out though. Never enough to meet the demand apparently. Despite their unpleasant nature they seem to be a popular commodity of convenience.

very good to hear that my friend!

let's just hope you never have to run for POTUS as a republican

[Alarti0001]

Nah bro I dont think

This is where your post was accurate.

[Alarti0001]

Nah bro I dont think you get it. I mean you say a lot but reality says another thing entirely. This is what I meant about SPLC being garbage and biased. You say SPLC says BLM isnt a hate group but then SPLC says that a White Lives Matter movement is rayciss and is a hate group. Notice SPLC really goes after people who speak out against Jews or Gays. In the stuff I posted previously it goes out of its way to separate BLM from other black separatist groups because those other groups "dont like da jews" . I imagine it rustles all of the SPLC's Jew lawyers.

See if white people try to form a movement to look after their own interest its called racist. If minorities do it its empowerment. People are tired of the doublespeak and they know exactly what is going on around them and which party/ideology is responsible. I know you enjoy the last word so please explain how one group is racist and the other is not.

You are off on a tangent arguing against a Point I never tried to make.

I never said black people can't be racist. The KKK was about about "white power" sure.. but it was about white power at the expense of others. It was about dominance and oppression. It's racist in every sense because the literal goals of the movement talk about white dominance.

BLM isn't about oppression it comes from a feeling of inequality.
Which is why BLM has members from all cultures and lots of whites.... whom I'd assume you say are just self-hating lib-tards right?


What self-hating lib-tard blacks were allowed to join the KKK? Don't say Clayton Bigsby.

[Alarti0001]

Oh, stop being a contrarian! :p Classical doesn't mean extinct (can debate it if you like). We can call it whatever you like though. Call it True Liberalism or the Enlightend Path if you like. The point is remains that your use of the word contrasts with conventional usage (especially when you label Hillary as [i[hard[/i] right. Right now your argument is like insisting faggot isn't a slur for a gay person or a disparaging label for a male you don't like. It's really a bundle if sticks! You guys don't know what you are talking about!

Labeling Hillary hard right seems to originate with restricting left-right with "economic powers" as you previously indicated. Right or wrong, people regularly associate right with limited government and left with expansive government. Hillary leans left in that regard. If you are making the case that she leans right because she is a corporatist and therefore I'm support of an unrestricted market, I won't disagree in that context. However if we accept that that makes her right leaning we would have to associate all of her social policy as authoritarian, which I think makes sense also. So Hillary is a hard-right authoritarian?

Am I following you, or are you just trolling?



On a side note it is disturbing that autocorrect on my iPhone corrected a typo of Hillary to chill art....


Just because many american's have lost the meaning of the words doesn't mean they shouldn't be used properly. How else will people be able to critically think if they don't learn?

Yes Hillary is a Hard right authoritarian... she's a good deal less authoritarian than Trump but only slightly less conservative. She's a much more libertarian candidate than Trump, much closer to Ron Paul's voting history than any of the other republican candidates.
Which is shocking to many because everyone paints the clintons with a liberal hero's brush.

[Daywolf]

Hillery Clinton == Ron Paul

I found this thread thoroughly entertaining. Forumquest at its finest considering the mass amounts of thunderbird consumed so early in the morning.

[Nihilist_santa]

Just because many american's have lost the meaning of the words doesn't mean they shouldn't be used properly. How else will people be able to critically think if they don't learn?

Yes Hillary is a Hard right authoritarian... she's a good deal less authoritarian than Trump but only slightly less conservative. She's a much more libertarian candidate than Trump, much closer to Ron Paul's voting history than any of the other republican candidates.
Which is shocking to many because everyone paints the clintons with a liberal hero's brush.

You are living in a fucking fantasy. Blacks being anti-white doesnt = racism to Allaharti. Hillary Clinton is a right wing authoritarian. I think we have heard just about enough from you dude. Those two positions make you seem more looney than Alex Jones and I doubt anyone but pokesan will take you seriously from here on out. Go masturbate about words to some other people that want to fall for your line of shit.

You have some fucking nerve talking about tangents. I said it before but you are a fucking narcissist. Every single thread you post in turns into being about you dude by your own design.

[Daywolf]

Those two positions make you seem more looney than Alex Jones and I doubt anyone but pokesan will take you seriously from here on out.And I gotta say, that's pretty nuts (https://youtu.be/UkRY_kA2Aaw). :D

[maskedmelon]

Well, if you look at it through the political prism as he has defined it, it actually makes sense. The problem is that it ignores differential preferences for government.

I think rather than a graph that looks like this:

+

Alarti's looks more like this

|_

[Pokesan]

And I gotta say, that's pretty nuts (https://youtu.be/UkRY_kA2Aaw). :D

yaass queen

[Alarti0001]

Hillery Clinton == Ron Paul

I found this thread thoroughly entertaining. Forumquest at its finest considering the mass amounts of thunderbird consumed so early in the morning.

Never said Hillary Clinton was equal to Ron Paul dummy. I said her policies were closer to Ron Paul's then the other republicans who ran this year. Try to keep up pup.


Well, if you look at it through the political prism as he has defined it, it actually makes sense. The problem is that it ignores differential preferences for government.

I think rather than a graph that looks like this:

+

Alarti's looks more like this

|_

Nope my Graph looks like this +

Ron Paul is in the bottom right quadrant... all the repubs that ran and hillary are in the top right quadrant. Hillary is just further "south" then the other repubs.

[Nihilist_santa]

Duh guys everyone Allaharti disagress with is a far right fascist. This is a totally normal and unbiased position to take.

[Lune]

Sample of typical racial protest:

http://i.imgur.com/o9x2o03.jpg

[Ahldagor]

Sample of typical racial protest:

http://i.imgur.com/o9x2o03.jpg

Apache?

[iruinedyourday]

Lune the logic in that sign is not surpassed by the logic of 98% of ot politics posts

[Alarti0001]

Duh guys everyone Allaharti disagress with is a far right fascist. This is a totally normal and unbiased position to take.

I do have a tendency to disagree with far right fascists, correct.

[maskedmelon]

Never said Hillary Clinton was equal to Ron Paul dummy. I said her policies were closer to Ron Paul's then the other republicans who ran this year. Try to keep up pup.




Nope my Graph looks like this +

Ron Paul is in the bottom right quadrant... all the repubs that ran and hillary are in the top right quadrant. Hillary is just further "south" then the other repubs.

Curious what positions you feel make Hillary farther south? And which positions make the others farther north?

[Alarti0001]

Curious what positions you feel make Hillary farther south? And which positions make the others farther north?


Authoritarian Norms:

Promotes fear of outsiders, differences etc.
Willing to remove or reduce civil liberties to protect against "conjured threats"
Hostility to criticism or transparency.




Let's just use Trump.. since the others are out of the race.

For the authoritarian norms... can anyone reasonably say any of those don't apply very strongly to Trump?

All we have to go on are Trumps words and business actions.. since he's never held a political office.

Trump tries to use eminent domain in the past to seize a home so he could build a limousine parking lot.

He wants to build a giant wall along the US/Mexican border to keep foreigners out.

Somehow he will force Mexico to pay for it.

He indulges in conspiracy theories and uses that fear and xenophobia to control his followers (Global warming is a chinese hoax etc)

Wants to shutdown all muslims from entering the US.

Wants to put a 45% tariff on all goods manufactured in China. This would raise prices in the US but about the same percentage and amounts to Trump telling American's who they can or can't buy legal goods from.

Endorses Water-boarding and "much worse" forms of torture

Doesn't seem to support the freedom of speech or the press and has mentioned he'd change laws so he could sue when the press publishes negative articles about him.

Says we need to rebuild the military to make is stronger (somehow he thinks the military will prevent terrorist organizations? lol)

Will "bomb the hell out of ISIS" (as if he can just target them at the next terrorist convention)

Favors Flat tax (which is coded language for oligarchy, note russia's tax system)

Wants targeted surveillance on certain groups.

He's open to Nuclear war.

Supports the Patriot Act and strengthening it.

Wants to cut education. (Long standing research shows you are more likely to support authoritarianism with less education)

Has Small Hands!




Hillary

Supported the Iraq War

Supported the Patriot Act

Hostile to criticism or transparency

Doesn't promote fear of "the other"

[Pokesan]

He's open to Nuclear war.



how is this a criticism?

[sOurDieSel]

He wants to build a giant wall along the US/Mexican border to keep foreigners out.

Somehow he will force Mexico to pay for it.

He indulges in conspiracy theories and uses that fear and xenophobia to control his followers (Global warming is a chinese hoax etc)

Wants to shutdown all muslims from entering the US.

Wants to put a 45% tariff on all goods manufactured in China. This would raise prices in the US but about the same percentage and amounts to Trump telling American's who they can or can't buy legal goods from.

Endorses Water-boarding and "much worse" forms of torture

Doesn't seem to support the freedom of speech or the press and has mentioned he'd change laws so he could sue when the press publishes negative articles about him.

Says we need to rebuild the military to make is stronger (somehow he thinks the military will prevent terrorist organizations? lol)

Will "bomb the hell out of ISIS" (as if he can just target them at the next terrorist convention)

Favors Flat tax (which is coded language for oligarchy, note russia's tax system)

Wants targeted surveillance on certain groups.

He's open to Nuclear war.

Supports the Patriot Act and strengthening it.

Wants to cut education. (Long standing research shows you are more likely to support authoritarianism with less education)



Sounds like we might actually have a real country again.

Great Endorsement.