Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ...
18
26
27
28
29
LastLast
  1. #541
    Mechagnome Reaper0329's Avatar
    5+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Southern US
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    -Snip- Reeee conservatives -snip-
    Given your literal only posts are gross overgeneralizations, I'm not addressing any of that. There's zero point, and I'm not wasting my time.

    But dude, quoting a guy on an typo for an omitted word? lol Damn.

  2. #542
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper0329 View Post
    Given your literal only posts are gross overgeneralizations, I'm not addressing any of that. There's zero point, and I'm not wasting my time.

    But dude, quoting a guy on an typo for an omitted word? lol Damn.
    Overgeneralizations of what? This is US history, it's all there in any college level+ textbook. Especially as you as a fellow southerner should know how we got here.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  3. #543
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    No generalizations, specific points in time showing the changing of national strategy employed by conservatives due to the "gross federal overreach" of desegregation and the civil rights protections of black US citizens. The KKK is a canard; a mere sideshow utilized by conservatives to deflect from their successful and ongoing policies that isolated and ruined the lives of black US citizens for generations. The Nixon Administration was merely running with the policy set by the CRA, because they too knew that is was as untouchable in terms of constitutionality as Brown v. Board of Education. This is precisely why the DEA was formed. An agency of the executive branch that could have a national reach in ensuring the lives of black US citizens would never be on par with the white constituency of conservatism and the republican party.
    Nixon did not have to implement affirmative action and most certainly did not have to do it as aggressively as he did. It was an executive order from LBJ and then a far more expansive one from Nixon that created it. That he continued with his civil rights record from the 50's straight through his presidency completely undercuts your southern strategy myth. If you wanted to court a bunch of segregationists you think this is how you do it? Fact is, after democrats wouldn't give them the shield they had in the past and after a couple election cycles of throwing tantrums, the south had no choice but to vote on other factors. Did they have anything in common with the modern democratic party on religion, foreign policy, and so forth?

    The DEA was founded to deal with the large scale drug trade that had begun by the 60's. The reason to open a federal enforcement agency is because the crime involved is large scale and being done on an interstate and international level. I would be very surprised if they arrested that many african americans, especially compared to street level arrests, because the drug king pins and the transportation are usually hispanic or white. Not to mention they're the ones with most the profits, so not really too concerned here. If you have actual evidence please share.


    Southern cities, even after desegregation and the CRA/VRA, have still been in economic stasis, until the past decade. This is directly attributable to white conservatives (segregationists) creating suburbs, using zoning ordinance to isolate where blacks and other minorities were allowed to live. My city of Nashville is no different; until this decade, the pockets of deepest economic isolation and violent/drug crime were all delineated by industrial zoning, railroads, rivers, and the interstate system. Throw in the incorporated neighborhoods with their own police forces, and you had a multi-layered system to ensure segregation and isolation, created over 70 years ago.

    Conservative (segregationists) people created the zoning ordinances for my city and virtually every US city prior to desegregation. The white flight started showing its wings when Eisenhower desegregated the military, and it culminated into the full vacation during the civil rights march. Among the segregationist citizenry the marches, the protests, the speeches, were all looked on in disdain. The ability to change zoning ordinance was impossible without the economic resources that were not available to the inner city populations in the US due to segregationist control of the local and regional banking systems. Consider the economic reality of today's disparity in familial wealth between a white family and a black one on this page. https://clarifi.org/programs/clarifi...t-sheet-racial

    Easy to check fact - Nashville has not had a Republican mayor in at least 50 years and that probably means they never did. The most left wing politicians in America are big city mayors because this is where the far left votes are. If you want to change all these problems that were and are being caused by local laws then why aren't you doing that???

    Southern cities are not poor, they are most certainly richer and more populous than they ever were back when segregation was in effect. The south's economy has boomed. A great deal of that is due to northern immigrants. I rarely hear a southern accent in Atlanta for example.

    It was Eisenhower who began in the interstate system that led to suburbs. I don't think anyone understood the consequences fully at that time. The black middle class also "white flight"-ed out of the inner city. Another unintended consequence was the whole community policing movement. Clinton and many moderate politicians of the day thought it would work better for minorities than having strangers in patrol cars swooping down on them from time to time. Instead it resulted in complaints of harassment and prejudice. Best yet was the Clinton initiatives to make mortgages more available to minorities. This played a major role in the housing boom and bust in the 2000's. Government programs rarely work the way they are expected.

    And while I'm questioning some of the numbers from that left wing non-profit you linked, I could see that group doing more good in this field than any of these government programs.

    I fully aware how conservative state lawmakers exploit the incredibly flawed process to determine district sizes, where it is used solely for magnifying their political power. Here's an informative link showing it.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tricting-maps/

    And another major issue that is constantly ignored by conservatives is the way overdue of the creation of additional districts. The constitutionally-mandated lower limit is 30,000 citizens to one representative; we are currently at 700,000 to one and growing. This has had devastating effects on both the civic-engagement of the citizenry as well as the exponential growth of power that these representatives enjoy. The senate is even more egregious; one person has the authority of over tens of millions of people, a feeling that would not go over well with the progressive founding fathers, but would of been supported by past conservatives, and of course today's conservatives.

    For the third time, gerrymandering has existed for 200 years in this country. For most of the last 100 years it favored democrats who won most of the state legislatures in this country. Now in the last couple decades, the Republicans began winning more of the state legislatures, and suddenly we're concerned about it? Fat chance, don't care. Also, this does not mean minorities get screwed, in fact there is plenty of evidence of local black politicians backing these Republican gerrymanders because when democrat districts get concentrated, they tend to get elected instead of upper class white liberals.

    Progressive founding fathers? I doubt Washington and Adams would be down for that label. You seem to want to make this good vs evil struggle and that's not how the real world works.

  4. #544
    Quote Originally Posted by Marakesh View Post
    For most of the last 100 years it favored democrats who won most of the state legislatures in this country.
    Another False Statement.
    A Fetus is not a person under the 14th amendment.

    Christians are Forced Birth Fascists against Human Rights who indoctrinate and groom children. Prove me wrong.

  5. #545
    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    Another False Statement.
    You've yet to have shown one. You give no evidence here either.

    2 seconds google search reveals

    https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...st-point-cent/

    What's that chart of state legislatures show? When did I first hear concern about gerrymandering? Oh yeah, late 90's. Then not again until the last few years. Curious timing there ....

  6. #546
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    neo-nazis that's what you call them.
    It is actualy a rather important distinction that gets lost, og natzi's weren't white supremacists, they were German aryan supremesists, 100% of the dudes chanting that forget they would all be lined up with the slav's as in hitter words "Americans are a mogrel race",at some point in American history the germanic natzi message mixed with the confederate kkk message and spawned the neo-natzi, it been interesting reading into how the hate group evolved out of European ethnic hated into American race hatred.

  7. #547
    Quote Originally Posted by Marakesh View Post
    You've yet to have shown one. You give no evidence here either.

    2 seconds google search reveals
    You made the claim that Gerrymandering favored Democrats for the past 100 years, that is false.
    Last edited by szechuan; 2019-05-24 at 09:33 AM.
    A Fetus is not a person under the 14th amendment.

    Christians are Forced Birth Fascists against Human Rights who indoctrinate and groom children. Prove me wrong.

  8. #548
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    rnt jews wite lul
    Nazi weren't pro-white they were pro -certain ethic white groups.

    Primarily Nords and Germans also to a lesser extent Franks and Anglo-Saxons. They didn't for instance hold people of the Mediterranean in high regards

  9. #549
    Banned Strawberry's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sweden/Yugoslavia
    Posts
    3,752
    Nazi professior: "Holocaust didn't exist!"
    Nazi supporters of said professor: "6 milion more jewish deaths!"

    I'm confused.

  10. #550
    Quote Originally Posted by Marakesh View Post
    That shows Goldwater getting less than half of the southern vote, and little different than what Republicans were getting the 3 elections before that.
    Republicans had never won those states before that...

    Seriously, your posts are a giant waffle with little bits of absolute nonsense peppered in. The mental gymnastics you're doing to pretend Goldwater didn't flip the South is ridiculous. You wanted to know why Goldwater might be considered one of the fathers of the Southern Strategy, along with Nixon? This is why. It's literally staring you in the fucking face lol.

    Goldwater flipped the South, but in courting the racists so hard he alienated the rest of the country (oh, except Arizona lol) and lost the election. Nixon was the first Republican President to successfully flip the South AND win the election.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    Nazi professior: "Holocaust didn't exist!"
    Nazi supporters of said professor: "6 milion more jewish deaths!"

    I'm confused.
    They be dumb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  11. #551
    When the hall of cost never happened but you want it to happen again.

    Fuckin Nazis man, jesus christ.

  12. #552
    Quote Originally Posted by WonderZebra View Post
    Nazi weren't pro-white they were pro -certain ethic white groups.

    Primarily Nords and Germans also to a lesser extent Franks and Anglo-Saxons. They didn't for instance hold people of the Mediterranean in high regards
    The subject isn't Nazis, it's white supremacists.

  13. #553
    Quote Originally Posted by szechuan View Post
    You made the claim that Gerrymandering favored Democrats for the past 100 years, that is false.

    This is a sophisticated argument. Just didn't happen. Over a hundred years of vote fraud from Tammany Hall to the LBJ and Daley Machine, but nope, that gerrymandering didn't happen. Two hundred years ago was the last time someone thought of that one. Just remain in denial, but I suspect you're not going to like the coming news even less. Everything catches up with you eventually.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    Republicans had never won those states before that...

    Seriously, your posts are a giant waffle with little bits of absolute nonsense peppered in. The mental gymnastics you're doing to pretend Goldwater didn't flip the South is ridiculous. You wanted to know why Goldwater might be considered one of the fathers of the Southern Strategy, along with Nixon? This is why. It's literally staring you in the fucking face lol.

    Goldwater flipped the South, but in courting the racists so hard he alienated the rest of the country (oh, except Arizona lol) and lost the election. Nixon was the first Republican President to successfully flip the South AND win the election.
    Ha, you are trolling me then, right? I mean you can't actually believe you were trying to honestly discuss the issue and are some kind of victim here, right? I mean that would be .... quite detached from reality I'll say in kindest words possible.

    Again, repeat one fact and a lot of invective. So, this is your understanding of my "contortions" and "twisting" ?

    The five elections around the 64 CRA showing similar numbers compared to the only election that seems to matter to you.

    Description of Republican support for civil rights before and after. Still can't answer why Nixon put affirmative action in place in his first term, eh? That's a great southern strategy.

    In fact, you have only shown the ability to link a map from wikipedia. That's the entire sum of knowledge you brought to this thread. And then keep pointing at it and insisting its true.

  14. #554
    ITT people who want to virtue signal by going after the crazies of society.

  15. #555
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Marakesh View Post
    Nixon did not have to implement affirmative action and most certainly did not have to do it as aggressively as he did. It was an executive order from LBJ and then a far more expansive one from Nixon that created it. That he continued with his civil rights record from the 50's straight through his presidency completely undercuts your southern strategy myth. If you wanted to court a bunch of segregationists you think this is how you do it? Fact is, after democrats wouldn't give them the shield they had in the past and after a couple election cycles of throwing tantrums, the south had no choice but to vote on other factors. Did they have anything in common with the modern democratic party on religion, foreign policy, and so forth?
    Of course he did; it was started three decades earlier, and grew more of a necessity since desegregation and the CRA/VRA. The Nixon Administration knew it was an impregnable policy after the tumultuous sixties and the Warren and subsequent Berger SCOTUS. The Southern Strategy isn't a myth, and it is still used by all republican presidential candidates to this day. Nixon's own 1968 campaign strategy was a direct appeal to the "silent majority", segregationists and conservatives incensed by the "gross federal overreach" of desegregation and the civil rights movement, which were the initial pangs of enfranchisement of many constituencies in the US. Beyond Nixon, Reagan announced his candidacy at a Mississippi county fair championing the cause to re-invigorate states' rights, the same county in which black and white civil rights activists were murdered in cold blood less than two decades before, an event he completely glossed over in order to appeal to the conservatives (segregationists) in the south.

    The DEA was founded to deal with the large scale drug trade that had begun by the 60's. The reason to open a federal enforcement agency is because the crime involved is large scale and being done on an interstate and international level. I would be very surprised if they arrested that many african americans, especially compared to street level arrests, because the drug king pins and the transportation are usually hispanic or white. Not to mention they're the ones with most the profits, so not really too concerned here. If you have actual evidence please share.
    It was founded to bring the most punitive federal charges of the sale/consummation/trafficking of drugs in order to sell the republican "tough on crime" mantra which is still used by modern republican candidates to this day, which in reality meant crushing the lives of millions of Black Americans who were already subject to living in the most crime-ridden areas of the country due to segregationist policies. Why do you think marijuana is still a schedule 1 drug? Conservatives knew the incidence of drug use was higher in areas where black communities lived, because that is what happens to any human being that lives in a ghetto created by white segregationists (conservatives).


    Easy to check fact - Nashville has not had a Republican mayor in at least 50 years and that probably means they never did. The most left wing politicians in America are big city mayors because this is where the far left votes are. If you want to change all these problems that were and are being caused by local laws then why aren't you doing that???
    Conservatives (segregationists) left US cities in droves due to desegregation and the civil rights movement. White flight radically changed the economic and demographic landscape of all US cities, essentially encircling them to ensure economic isolation from white society. Local ordinances and governance has changed considerably, however it is still a monumental task to undo the hundred+ year old zoning changes from established heavy industrial businesses that fight local zoning law changes tooth and nail so they don't have to relocate.
    Southern cities are not poor, they are most certainly richer and more populous than they ever were back when segregation was in effect. The south's economy has boomed. A great deal of that is due to northern immigrants. I rarely hear a southern accent in Atlanta for example.
    Yes, recently southern cities have been undergoing massive change and an influx of millennial interest and cash due to the vast majority of them not ascribing the segregationist views of their grandparents and the "white flight" attitudes of their parents. Both northern/western/Central/South American immigration has helped both the south and the US as a whole to retain the productivity needed for our economy.

    It was Eisenhower who began in the interstate system that led to suburbs. I don't think anyone understood the consequences fully at that time. The black middle class also "white flight"-ed out of the inner city. Another unintended consequence was the whole community policing movement. Clinton and many moderate politicians of the day thought it would work better for minorities than having strangers in patrol cars swooping down on them from time to time. Instead it resulted in complaints of harassment and prejudice. Best yet was the Clinton initiatives to make mortgages more available to minorities. This played a major role in the housing boom and bust in the 2000's. Government programs rarely work the way they are expected.
    There was no racial segregation motivation for the interstate highway system, since that was before conservatives (segregationists) felt threatened and cornered by the "gross federal overreach" of desegregation and the civil rights movement. You are perpetuating a mythical black middle class population in this country. Prior to the protections provided to them in the CRA/VRA they were effectively huddled into the last quintile of income earners due to employer, banking, labor union, and housing discrimination.

    Your last sentence is devoid of any understanding of the 2008 financial system crash, and can be rebutted with one sentence; Collateralized-debt obligations and the insurance policies bought by the investment banks underwritten by firms who were paid handsomely by the same investment banks holding the insurance policies against the CDOs in question.


    For the third time, gerrymandering has existed for 200 years in this country. For most of the last 100 years it favored democrats who won most of the state legislatures in this country. Now in the last couple decades, the Republicans began winning more of the state legislatures, and suddenly we're concerned about it? Fat chance, don't care. Also, this does not mean minorities get screwed, in fact there is plenty of evidence of local black politicians backing these Republican gerrymanders because when democrat districts get concentrated, they tend to get elected instead of upper class white liberals.

    Gerrymandering wasn't needed in conservative-controlled south due to Jim Crow and poll taxes, and more antiquated means of suppressing "coloreds" from voting such as mass lynchings, closing polling places, and throwing out all ballots from "certain" neighborhoods. Gerrymandering became a political necessity for conservatives (republicans) after the VRA due to the federal government now affording protections to minorities to ensure their civic liberties were protected, which ironically are still under attack in Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee. Conservatism is still incensed that the federal government has the gall to supersede state authority in ensuring all citizens have equal and unfettered access to voting and participating in democracy. Over 200 years of a myriad of ways of fighting federal authority to discriminate against black Americans, and you don't want to say it's not a cornerstone of US conservatism? Don't make me laugh harder.


    Progressive founding fathers? I doubt Washington and Adams would be down for that label. You seem to want to make this good vs evil struggle and that's not how the real world works.
    You are historically ignorant if you believe Washington and Adams were anything but radical militant progressives, who precariously put their lives on the line to fight for democracy and self determination. They killed conservatives that pledged fealty to King George all throughout the south and mid-Atlantic and routed King George's army to ensure their children would not live under the conservative governance of the English Crown. Washington and Jefferson would share more common cause to the LGBTQ marchers of today than US conservatives fighting to limit voter participation and inhibiting the expansion of representatives in the house, and denying statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam, and Northern Mariana.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  16. #556
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Of course he did; it was started three decades earlier, and grew more of a necessity since desegregation and the CRA/VRA. The Nixon Administration knew it was an impregnable policy after the tumultuous sixties and the Warren and subsequent Berger SCOTUS. The Southern Strategy isn't a myth, and it is still used by all republican presidential candidates to this day. Nixon's own 1968 campaign strategy was a direct appeal to the "silent majority", segregationists and conservatives incensed by the "gross federal overreach" of desegregation and the civil rights movement, which were the initial pangs of enfranchisement of many constituencies in the US. Beyond Nixon, Reagan announced his candidacy at a Mississippi county fair championing the cause to re-invigorate states' rights, the same county in which black and white civil rights activists were murdered in cold blood less than two decades before, an event he completely glossed over in order to appeal to the conservatives (segregationists) in the south.
    Were was Nixon mandated to put affirmative action in place? If it started 3 decades earlier, in what form and where? I can promise you it wasn't anything on the scale of what Nixon did. I am unaware of anything before LBJ's minor and Nixon's major programs, at least not in any concrete form.

    The silent majority refers to the civil unrest around anti-war and counter culture protesters. They were the ones making a lot of noise at that particular moment in history, but they were not in fact the majority. No one ever heard about this Mississippi speech at the time, its more of an invention of plucking one thing out of context, years later. I 've shown you LBJ using Goldwater's civil rights record against him in the 64 campaign, also the Democratic Party re-embracing George Wallace in the 80's, but we could also add Joe Biden's record in the 70's as well. How is it that Republicans are so good at magic, unhearable racism that they do better than the direct version of it!?


    It was founded to bring the most punitive federal charges of the sale/consummation/trafficking of drugs in order to sell the republican "tough on crime" mantra which is still used by modern republican candidates to this day, which in reality meant crushing the lives of millions of Black Americans who were already subject to living in the most crime-ridden areas of the country due to segregationist policies. Why do you think marijuana is still a schedule 1 drug? Conservatives knew the incidence of drug use was higher in areas where black communities lived, because that is what happens to any human being that lives in a ghetto created by white segregationists (conservatives).
    This isn't an explanation, its a bunch of assumptions and gross characterizations of other people's motives. Were drugs considered a good thing before the 60's counter culture? Was smoking pot the norm and then we decided to ban it? If you go far enough back they were putting cocaine in coca-cola, but we learned some lessons over time, and corporations couldn't sell any drug they wanted. Should we go back to that era? Would poorer communities be better served if we let the meth and crack trade flow unfettered>?

    Most importantly, you haven't said anything real about the DEA. You have a bunch of conspiracy level beliefs. You just assert everything was done as part of a master plan and provide no real proof. Is the DEA involved in a lot of street level arrests which is were most of the effected african americans are in the drug trade. Wasn't it founded to deal with interstate and international drug trade? You make no comment there at all, and just proclaim its racist.


    Conservatives (segregationists) left US cities in droves due to desegregation and the civil rights movement. White flight radically changed the economic and demographic landscape of all US cities, essentially encircling them to ensure economic isolation from white society. Local ordinances and governance has changed considerably, however it is still a monumental task to undo the hundred+ year old zoning changes from established heavy industrial businesses that fight local zoning law changes tooth and nail so they don't have to relocate.

    Yes, recently southern cities have been undergoing massive change and an influx of millennial interest and cash due to the vast majority of them not ascribing the segregationist views of their grandparents and the "white flight" attitudes of their parents. Both northern/western/Central/South American immigration has helped both the south and the US as a whole to retain the productivity needed for our economy.

    There was no racial segregation motivation for the interstate highway system, since that was before conservatives (segregationists) felt threatened and cornered by the "gross federal overreach" of desegregation and the civil rights movement. You are perpetuating a mythical black middle class population in this country. Prior to the protections provided to them in the CRA/VRA they were effectively huddled into the last quintile of income earners due to employer, banking, labor union, and housing discrimination.
    I was going to ask what your sources are for this, but I think you are just making this up as you go along. Its not even a left / right thing about the effect the interstate system had on cities. It is grievously complained about by environmentalists and city planners, 2 groups mostly associated with left political leanings. They were key to creating the suburbs, but that wasn't fully understood at the time. You continue to offer US history as if it only happens by some master plan. Some shadowy "segregationist US conservatives" just show up and control everything from behind the scenes. In my experience, a discussion is not possible here, because emotionally you need believe this.

    Also, the south has been in an economic upswing since the 60's, not just recently as you put it. And I seriously doubt there's a 100+ years of racist zoning laws, 90% of this country was rural at the start of the 20th century and most african americans lived in the rural south until the great migration period. That's when cities start to boom.


    Your last sentence is devoid of any understanding of the 2008 financial system crash, and can be rebutted with one sentence; Collateralized-debt obligations and the insurance policies bought by the investment banks underwritten by firms who were paid handsomely by the same investment banks holding the insurance policies against the CDOs in question.
    There are many reason for the GFC. Another one I would put at the top of the list is the modern Fed's love of low interest rates, it guarantees crashes eventually. CDO's just multiplied the damage in the financial sector. However, that mostly effected those with money to invest. How does that change the part where people were losing their homes?


    Gerrymandering wasn't needed in conservative-controlled south due to Jim Crow and poll taxes, and more antiquated means of suppressing "coloreds" from voting such as mass lynchings, closing polling places, and throwing out all ballots from "certain" neighborhoods. Gerrymandering became a political necessity for conservatives (republicans) after the VRA due to the federal government now affording protections to minorities to ensure their civic liberties were protected, which ironically are still under attack in Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Tennessee. Conservatism is still incensed that the federal government has the gall to supersede state authority in ensuto rich level peoplering all citizens have equal and unfettered access to voting and participating in democracy. Over 200 years of a myriad of ways of fighting federal authority to discriminate against black Americans, and you don't want to say it's not a cornerstone of US conservatism? Don't make me laugh harder.
    200 years? I think the Jim Crow south was around for 100 years, before that we lived with an unfortunate compromise at the federal level. Even though you said nothing relevant about gerrymandering I'll show you an interesting analysis. Basically, the conclusion is the New Deal Democrats did it more, but due to blue cities concentrating the vote, modern Republicans end up with close to their advantage (but not quite as good).

    https://www.nationalreview.com/magaz...use-democrats/


    You are historically ignorant if you believe Washington and Adams were anything but radical militant progressives, who precariously put their lives on the line to fight for democracy and self determination. They killed conservatives that pledged fealty to King George all throughout the south and mid-Atlantic and routed King George's army to ensure their children would not live under the conservative governance of the English Crown. Washington and Jefferson would share more common cause to the LGBTQ marchers of today than US conservatives fighting to limit voter participation and inhibiting the expansion of representatives in the house, and denying statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, Guam, and Northern Mariana.
    The Federalists believed in limited government, and the checks and balances they fought for are the ones people like you are in the process of destroying. You have absolutely nothing in common with them at all. I could see Adams and Washington coming around to gay marriage after overcoming some time travel culture shock, but the idea they would support imposing culture from the top down through the force of government is ridiculous. That is, yes to actual civil rights, but not enforcing belief systems onto citizens.

  17. #557
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    The subject isn't Nazis, it's white supremacists.
    The article is about Neo-Nazi. I was replying to someone saying Jews are white.

    Read the article a little atleast

  18. #558
    Quote Originally Posted by WonderZebra View Post
    The article is about Neo-Nazi. I was replying to someone saying Jews are white.

    Read the article a little atleast
    "6 million more" references Jews. They are labeled as white supremacists.

  19. #559
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnusthegreat View Post
    "6 million more" references Jews. They are labeled as white supremacists.
    Fucking clearly it relates to Jews. Person I was replying to was asking why white supremacist (the neo-nazis) would target Jews if they were white. I just said explained why, it's not that hard

  20. #560
    The Lightbringer Clone's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Kamino
    Posts
    3,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    Nazi professior: "Holocaust didn't exist!"
    Nazi supporters of said professor: "6 milion more jewish deaths!"

    I'm confused.
    Schrodinger's Holocaust.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •