Goran bought an AK-47
« prev   misc   next »

6
4

Goran bought an AK-47

By anonymous following x   2017 Apr 25, 10:16am 13,476 views   326 comments   watch   quote     share    


Let's just say I've always been Pro 2A, it's part of my libertarian leanings. I think people should be able to smoke pot, buy guns, and marry whatever gender they want.

As some of you may know, I've moved to a much more rural area in Nevada (though I still do split time in California for my consulting business) and a handgun seemed inadequate for this type of community. To me the AK47 is simple, easy to clean, easy to disassemble and maintain. It's also pretty accurate for my purposes (being able to hit targets at 100 yards across open plains). Ammo is pretty cheap in Nevada, and ordering online is even cheaper. I bought 2,000 rounds, so that should be enough for me for target shooting, or self defense purposes.

Anyone else here into guns or own firearms?

« First    « Previous     Comments 287 - 326 of 326     Last »

287   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 11:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Did you not post this?

iwog says

If you're so well studied, why don't you tell us why the Ukraine revolution was successful when there wasn't a single shot fired by the revolutionaries?

Has the above statement been proven to be utterly false, yes or no?

288   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 11:37am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says

Armed resistance is effective, what can I say.

It was effective in Vietnam. It wasn't effective in 1860. I can accurately say that armed resistance without overwhelming popular support is absolutely worthless.

I can also accurately say that your main assertion, that you need the freedom to buy military hardware, is not supported by a single word in this entire thread.

289   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 11:38am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says

Has the above statement been proven to be utterly false, yes or no?

Nope it hasn't. All you've done is make blind assertions, not even your assertions by the way, about what happened in the Ukraine. You didn't actually link anything.

290   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 11:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says

I can accurately say that armed resistance without overwhelming popular support is absolutely worthless.

In the American Revolution it has been estimated that only 3% of the population fought on the side of the revolutionaries.

In current day numbers, that would be around 10,000,000 armed patriots.

You don't think 10,000,000 armed Americans could successfully over throw the government?

291   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 11:42am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Here's a pretty good overview of what happened in Ukraine.

Anyone who believes this revolution succeeded because someone shot at police is a fucking moron and I say this with absolute certainty.

http://euromaidanpress.com/2016/02/20/the-story-of-ukraine-starting-from-euromaidan/2/#arvlbdata

292   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 11:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says

In the American Revolution it has been estimated that only 3% of the population fought on the side of the revolutionaries.

Probably accurate and it totally undermines your case. (again) So pray tell why millions of Americans need AK47s again?

293   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 11:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says

Probably accurate and it totally undermines your case. (again) So pray tell why millions of Americans need AK47s again?

In current day numbers, that would be around 10,000,000 armed patriots.

You don't think 10,000,000 armed Americans could successfully over throw the government?

294   Satoshi_Nakamoto   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 11:47am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Here's a pretty good overview of what happened in Ukraine.

Anyone who believes this revolution succeeded because someone shot at police is a fucking moron and I say this with absolute certainty.

Don't need no fucking overview - followed it pretty closely in real-time. The revolution almost failed: the protesters were squeezed back into very small area on Maidan and the whole thing was almost squashed. Yes, police starting to die from gunfire did play a significant role in the turnaround. So anyone who's willing to discount the fact that there were 0 police death until Feb 18 and 17 in two day's span is a fucking brain-dead mega-moron with an agenda.

295   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 11:48am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says

In current day numbers, that would be around 10,000,000 armed patriots.

Mostly located in the South. How'd that work out last time?

Goran_K says

You don't think 10,000,000 armed Americans could successfully over throw the government?

10 million armed Americans would never have to overthrow the government. If there was ever a situation where close to 100% of armed NRA thugs could agree on a political revolution, they would be the bad guys. You would be North Vietnam. You would be the antebellum South. You'd either win or lose but either way you would very likely be the oppressors.

296   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 11:50am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Straw Man says

Don't need no fucking overview - followed it pretty closely in real-time. The revolution almost failed: the protesters were squeezed back into very small area on Maidan and the whole thing was almost squashed. Yes, police starting to die from gunfire did play a significant role in the turnaround. So anyone who's willing to discount the fact that there were 0 police death until Feb 18 and 17 in two day's span is a fucking brain-dead mega-moron with an agenda.

Wow, who knew that all you had to do is shoot a couple of cops and the revolution would have been won?

I'm still waiting for a link. Somehow I don't think your description is accurate but so far it's just a feeling. Please document it.

297   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 11:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says

Mostly located in the South. How'd that work out last time?

Democrat slave owners got their asses kicked by Republicans. That's how it worked out.

iwog says

10 million armed Americans would never have to overthrow the government. If there was ever a situation where close to 100% of armed NRA thugs could agree on a political revolution, they would be the bad guys. You would be North Vietnam. You would be the antebellum South. You'd either win or lose but either way you would very likely be the oppressors.

The NRA is a voluntarily funded org of over 6,000,000 members whose sole purpose is to protect the 2nd Amendment of the United States and the right of Americans to bear arms (inherently a civil right). They're thugs?

298   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 12:02pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says

Democrat slave owners got their asses kicked by Republicans. That's how it worked out.

Great tangent. Now detail the ways in which this skull-fucks your original point?

Goran_K says

The NRA is a voluntarily funded org of over 6,000,000 members whose sole purpose is to protect the 2nd Amendment of the United States and the right of Americans to bear arms (inherently a civil right). They're thugs?

Yeah most of them are thugs. The reason I know this is because as a gun owner I am in contact with many NRA members. They infect the skeet club. They infect the hunting circles. They PRAY for insurrection. They gush and moan with pleasure over the thought they could "protect liberty" by killing a bunch of bad libruls. They resemble the Bundy clan, special snowflakes who think they are exempt from the law. They modify their weapons to be fully automatic and brag about it. They know how to construct pipe bombs. They fly the american flag from their trucks until they are shredded because why not?

Yeah I know the NRA. I know what they say in public and I know what they say in private. Y'all are no patriots. Most NRA members hate the country and hate the government and hate most of the people who they consider an infection.

299   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 12:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says

Great tangent. Now detail the ways in which this skull-fucks your original point?

Does it not help my point? Governments that oppress civil rights tend to get their asses kicked by well armed freedom lovers.

iwog says

Yeah most of them are thugs. The reason I know this is because as a gun owner I am in contact with many NRA members. They infect the skeet club. They infect the hunting circles. They PRAY for insurrection. They gush and moan with pleasure over the thought they could "protect liberty" by killing a bunch of bad libruls. They resemble the Bundy clan, special snowflakes who think they are exempt from the law. They modify their weapons to be fully automatic and brag about it. They know how to construct pipe bombs. They fly the american flag from their trucks until they are shredded because why not?

Yeah I know the NRA. I know what they say in public and I know what they say in private. Y'all are no patriots. Most NRA members hate the country and hate the government and hate most of the people who they consider an infection.

You're describing stereotypical right wing extremist. If you hang out with extremist, you will encounter extremist views. The truth is the board of directors at the NRA is far more diverse than the editorial staff of the Huffington Post. With 6,000,000, you will get a large swath of moderates and a small sliver of extremist, just like any organization or entity.

300   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 12:39pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says

Does it not help my point? Governments that oppress civil rights tend to get their asses kicked by well armed freedom lovers.

No it doesn't help your point considering the reason the South revolted was that the federal government was being tyrannical and taking away their states rights. You know this but you're going to pretend it doesn't apply. Tyranny is always in the eye of the beholder which speaks directly to my second point. Would-be tyrants within the NRA are blind to their own tyranny. When popular revolutionary force is eventually used, it's going to be in the hands of evil people and it's going to resemble the Nazi takeover of Germany or any number of other good historical examples.

Goran_K says

You're describing stereotypical right wing extremist.

I'm describing most NRA members I have met and most of them live in California. Once again it is YOU who wrote a fantasy about 10 million NRA members united rising up against a dictatorial government for righteous cause. YOU claimed unity, in fact your assertion depended on it. Now all of a sudden none of that matters and you're making some crazy point about diversity.

You don't just move the goal posts, you erase them and draw new ones. Luckily I'm so well versed that I'll keep up easily.

301   Robert Sproul   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 1:05pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

There are THOUSANDS of laws in this country restricting gun ownership. California has the most restrictive laws in the nation. What the hell, exactly, do the Anti-gunners want?
Bearing in mind that the Assault Weapons Ban of ’94 was found to not effect the crime rate whatsoever, which new prohibitive law is supposed to get Black-inner-city-young-men to quit shooting each other?

302   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 1:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Goran_K says

That's why I don't vote democrat.

You are a fool if you think Republicans are more likely to prevent tyranny. Republicans are the greatest advocates of torturing and murdering people in the name of "national security" and revoking the right of habeas corpus. They threaten your freedom far more than Democrats.

303   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 1:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

iwog says

YOUR FUCKING ASSERTION is that military weapons should be allowed in the hands of citizens because it's the only way to prevent tyranny.

Exactly. And this, once again, gets down to the crux of the issue. Either civilians have military weapons and thus some civilians will use those military weapons to commit acts of terrorism against the general public, or civilians don't have military weapons and thus have no chance of defeating the U.S. military and overthrowing a corrupt and tyrannical federal government. This is the Sophie's choice that pro-militia people cannot avoid.

304   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 1:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Goran_K says

You don't think 10,000,000 armed Americans could successfully over throw the government?

10,000,000 armed Americans could not even overthrow a state, nonetheless the federal government. Ten million men does not even equal a single aircraft carrier. You might as well have one billion cavemen vs the U.S. military. It would be a masquerader. Numbers mean nothing compare to technology.

And just think about the logistics of 10 million rebels collaborating over battle plans in a way that doesn't make them a centralized target. You can either have all independent cells with little collaboration, or a well-organize strike-force with a central command that can be attacked directly. The first is not an effective mechanism for overthrowing centralized power. At best, it can engage in terrorism for decades being a sore spot, and likely uniting the people under the government no matter how tyrannical it is. The latter is exactly the kind of opposition our military is best at destroying as it only has to cut off the head.

305   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 1:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Goran_K says

Democrat slave owners got their asses kicked by Republicans. That's how it worked out.

And then those Democrat slave owners, also called Dixiecrats, became Republicans with Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy and later the Tea Party and finally the Freedom Caucus, while the Republicans of that day became the Democrats of today.

However, it's nice of you to admit that the American South and the conservative right are the bad guys. They certainly are regardless of which party they control.

It's also nice to see you acknowledge, even though you aren't smart enough to realize you did, that liberals are the good guys. We liberals were all in the Republican Party back in the 19th century. After the Southern Strategy allowed the conservative right to take over the Republican Party, all liberals were ejected from that party and went Democrat for lack of alternative in a two party system. We liberals often say, "We didn't leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left us.".

Here's a picture of a liberal Republican from before the Southern Strategy that would not be welcomed in today's Republican Party and absolutely would be a Democrat today.

306   Robert Sproul   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 1:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Numbers mean nothing compare to technology.

Except the US military has not successfully put down an insurrection since the Philippines.
When they were riding freaking horses

307   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 1:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Dan8267 says

nd then those Democrat slave owners, also called Dixiecrats, became Republicans with Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy and later the Tea Party and finally the Freedom Caucus, while the Republicans of that day became the Democrats of today.

That's a myth, one made up by leftist to mask the Democrat parties history of racism (fought for slavery, founded KKK, opposed black voting rights).

If Nixon really had a "southern strategy", then how come the Deep South went to the Democratic segregationist Wallace?

“Segregation Now, Segregation Forever”

Nixon was also the first president to implement affirmative action (he forced unions to accept black applicants, the unions were overwhelmingly white at this time, and threatened them to admit blacks or lose federal contracts). Nixon was Pro-black.

The Southern Strategy claims Republicans made 'racist appeals' to get racist in the South to vote for him yet Nixon failed to win a single southern state except Florida (which is a state that has a large migrant conservative Cuban population that voted in droves for Nixon, they knew the effects of far left statist policies, that's why they aren't in Cuba anymore). Interesting. What were those appeals? Can you find any that exist? If not, then you really have no case.

Like I said, it's a complete lie fabricated by Democrats to hide the racist history of their own racist party.

308   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 2:12pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says

I'm describing most NRA members I have met and most of them live in California. Once again it is YOU who wrote a fantasy about 10 million NRA members united rising up against a dictatorial government for righteous cause. YOU claimed unity, in fact your assertion depended on it. Now all of a sudden none of that matters and you're making some crazy point about diversity.

You don't just move the goal posts, you erase them and draw new ones. Luckily I'm so well versed that I'll keep up easily.

If you don't want to meet racist, stop hanging out with racist. Not all NRA members are going to be the same. That's simply not logical that 10,000,000 people would walk lock step on every issue. I do believe extreme racist, of the likes you claim to hang out with, are a very small percentage of the country. The KKK and Nazi party are extremely small in the U.S (less than 5,000 members) to the point of being inconsequential politically. Yet you're claiming every NRA member you have met fits the mold. Okay, that says more about you than it does about the NRA which has millions of members.

I haven't met the extreme racist you have described, but then again I am very picky about the company I keep.

309   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 2:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Robert Sproul says

Except the US military has not successfully put down an insurrection since the Philippines.

Has the U.S. government ever been overthown by an insurrection? Has the U.S. military ever been destroyed by an insurrection?

The fact is that the repeated defeats of our military have all been failures to use the sword to accomplish political goals that the sword can never possibly accomplish. You cannot create a free republic by pointing guns at people you are trying to set free. It doesn't work that way. And as such those defeats do not imply in any way that an insurrection could defeat the U.S. military on U.S. soil and overthrow the U.S. government. It only means the military cannot be used to create republics.

Goran_K says

Dan8267 says

nd then those Democrat slave owners, also called Dixiecrats, became Republicans with Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy and later the Tea Party and finally the Freedom Caucus, while the Republicans of that day became the Democrats of today.

That's a myth, one made up by leftist to excuse the parties history of racism (fought for slavery, founded KKK, opposed black voting rights).

You are now rewriting history and doing a very stupid job at that. There are still people alive today who literally lived through the migration of Dixiecrats into the Republican Party. The history is well-known and indisputable.

Strom Thurmond is a perfect example of a Dixiecrat who became a Republican due to the Southern Strategy. Are you saying Strom Thurmond wasn't evil? That he's the good guy? Thurmond didn't change. The parties changed. Anyone who denies this is an outright liar.

The American political system has gone through six party systems already and now is transitioning to the seventh party system. To pretend that the political or demographic makeup of the two major parties has been constant throughout history is a bold face lie.

Goran_K says

Nixon was Pro-black.

CNN: Aide says Nixon's war on drugs targeted blacks, hippies

"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

There is nothing more disgusting and unpatriotic than rewriting history with lies. You are harming all future generations of Americans by doing so.

310   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 2:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Strom Thurmond is a perfect example of a Dixiecrat who became a Republican due to the Southern Strategy. Are you saying Strom Thurmond wasn't evil? That he's the good guy? Thurmond didn't change.

Yes you can name 1 or 2. You can't name five elected Dixiecrats out of the 900+ elected offices that became Republican. Please, go name 5.

You can't? That's because they don't exist. 1-2 people switching platforms does not mean a entire party has switched platforms.

Dan8267 says

The parties changed. Anyone who denies this is an outright liar.

Yet you can't explain this:

If Nixon had a "Southern Strategy" to get the parties to switch, how come the racist in the deep south still voted for Democrat Segregationist Wallace?

311   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 2:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Goran_K says

You can't name five elected Dixiecrats out of the 900+ elected offices that became Republican.

Honey, all those Dixiecrats are dead now, but the very people you are condemning literally switched from Democrat to Republican during the 1950s and 1960s, and today's Republican platform was literally written by those same people. So yes, you are condemning today's Republicans when you point out how evil Democrats were before the 1960s.

Goran_K says

Yet you can't explain this:

If Nixon had a "Southern Strategy" to get the parties to switch, how come the racist in the deep south still voted for Democrat Segregationist Wallace?

Yes I can, easily.

The transition from the fifth party system to the sixth party system did not happen overnight. No political party transition happens overnight. It takes years, even decades, for such a transition to take place. That's still damn fast in the big picture, but it does not mean everyone transitions at the same time.

Furthermore, George C. Wallace ran many times for president and never secured the Democratic Nomination. In fact, he even left the party and ran as an independent in 1968. And guess what? It was the white southerner, the descendant of slavers and today's republican/tea party/freedom caucus, who supported Wallace.

Wallace also harbored presidential aspirations. In 1968, he ran as an Independent candidate, supported mainly by white, working-class Southerners.

Put simply, Wallace was a hold out who didn't realize or accept that the political parties had changed. If he had ran as a republican, he would have gotten the nomination.

No matter how you cut it, history shows that the bad guys were American Southerners descended from slavers. It does not matter which party these scumbags belong to at any given time. The actual bad guys have always been the exact same demographic. If you want to know which party backs evil, just look at which one is composed of these evil people. The party does not make the people. The people make the party.

So what kind of perverted twisting of history are you going to try to get out of this one? God knows you won't be honest and just admit the truth I stated above. That would take far too much intellectual courage. And yes, I'm trying to shame you into doing the right thing. It's the only face-saving move you have, but you're not smart enough to take it even after being told point blank that it's the only face-saving move. Watch. It would be trivially easy for you to finally prove me wrong on something by manning up and simply admitting your mistake. But despite the fact that I've gone out on a branch and stated that you won't do that, you still won't do that. It's like you are compelled to do the wrong thing even when you know everyone is expecting you to do the wrong thing and you'd look much better if you surprised them. Yet still, you will not prove me wrong even after reading this paragraph. It's amazing your irrational species has survived this long.

312   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 3:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Honey, all those Dixiecrats are dead now, but the very people you are condemning literally switched from Democrat to Republican during the 1950s and 1960s, and today's Republican platform was literally written by those same people. So yes, you are condemning today's Republicans when you point out how evil Democrats were before the 1960s.

Okay, maybe they did switch. So name five. Why can't you do it?

Dan8267 says

The transition from the fifth party system to the sixth party system did not happen overnight. No political party transition happens overnight. It takes years, even decades, for such a transition to take place. That's still damn fast in the big picture, but it does not mean everyone transitions at the same time.

Furthermore, George C. Wallace ran many times for president and never secured the Democratic Nomination. In fact, he even left the party and ran as an independent in 1968. And guess what? It was the white southerner, the descendant of slavers and today's republican/tea party/freedom caucus, who supported Wallace.

Wallace was a life long Democrat (he had been a Democrat for 24 years before the 1968 election) and only became independent because he didn't feel Humphries could beat Nixon (which in that respect he was right). Now you're trying to sweep his history under the rug (like all Democrats do with Wallace) because you know he was a racist idiot that carried the deep south in the 1968 election was destroys your point about Nixon's "southern strategy". Dan8267 says

No matter how you cut it, history shows that the bad guys were American Southerners descended from slavers.

Yes I agree. Those people were Democrats and the ones who are still obsessed with race and continue to try and implement racist policies are still Democrats.

I'd also add that the Civil Rights act passed with more Republican Support than Democrat support.

Let's also not forget Hillary Clinton's mentor and best friend, former KKK Grand Dragon Robert Byrd.

313   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 3:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Goran_K says

So name five. Why can't you do it?

Because it is the year 2017, dummy. All the former Dixiecrats are dead. All the people you referred to as being scumbag evil racists are dead and decomposed. Today's Republicans are the literal descendants of Dixiecrats and slavers.

The oldest Republican senator is Chuck Grassley, born September 17, 1933, age 83 years. He became a senator in 1981 at the age of 48, which is pretty young for a senator. However, he became a senator long after the Southern Strategy had completely reversed the two parties.

And in case you're thinking the other side of the aisle can support your bogus claim, think again. Grassley is the second oldest senator. The oldest is Democrat Dianne Feinstein, born June 22, 1933, age 83 years. She became a senator in 1992, also long after the Southern Strategy did its dirty work.

So you might as well ask me why I can't point to any living Republican who fought in the Civil War or owned slaves. It is a stupid and obvious red herring. I can point to plenty of examples of Dixiecrat politicians becoming Republicans and liberal Republicans, the anti-racist kind, leaving the Republican Party as the racist Southerners took it over. I can also show you African Americans going from voting Republican contently to voting Democrat consistently. I can also show you racist policies being sponsored by Democrats before the Southern Strategy and by Republicans after the Southern Strategy, and often those two party members being the exact same individuals.

So no, you don't get to rewrite history.

Goran_K says

Wallace was a life long Democrat

Wallace was a life-long Dixiecrat. That does not mean the post-Southern-Strategy Democratic Party is represented by him. His polices are absolutely more in line with the Republicans from Richard Nixon to today. You are lying about which party today inherited the racist and vile platforms of yesterday.

Goran_K says

Those people were Democrats and the ones who are still obsessed with race and continue to try and implement racist policies are still Democrats.

The American South does not vote Democrat today. George, South Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana have all consistently voted Republican in every presidential and Congressional election for the past 50 years. You are lying when you say that these southern racists are Democrats. They are Republicans today.

Your entire argument is that if America were renamed Germany and German were renamed America, then our country would be responsible for the holocaust simply because it bears the name Germany. That is a stupid lie that only the biggest idiot would buy. Changing a name does not change the characteristics of a thing.

Goran_K says

Given the party switch, this demonstrates that today's democrats are the "good guys", relatively speaking, and today's republicans are evil. Swapping lapel pins does not excuse the evil history of your ideas.

It's very telling that the conservative right praises liberalism, which they do whenever they exhaust the pre-1960s Republican Party, while condemning their own policies and philosophies, which they also do whenever they vilify the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

Goran_K says

Let's also not forget Hillary Clinton's mentor and best friend, former KKK Grand Dragon Robert Byrd.

Hillary Clinton is a conservative rightist in the Democratic Party. Her polices are absolutely identical to the Republican Platform. And I mean both social and economic policies. She is a self-proclaimed "Goldwater girl". Do you even know what that means? She is a white, Anglo-Saxon protestant Methodist, a literal WASP. Now, none of that makes her a bad person, but it sure doesn't make her one of those Yankee Republicans from 1860 or today's Democrat equivalent. Furthermore, her father was a life-long Republican. She worked on the presidential campaign of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964. And she was an attorney at Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas from 1976-1992. How the fuck are you going to group Hillary Clinton in with Bernie Sanders and not with Barry Goldwater or Strom Thurmond? That requires some serious rewriting of history.

So your argument is that we should ignore the facts that
1. The very Democrats that you condemn literally switched parties when Nixon's Southern Strategy was implemented.
2. The Dixiecrat platform became the Republican platform.
3. Liberals were kicked out the Republican platform and entered the new Democrat platform as the only viable option in the two party system.
4. A few right wing conservatives stayed or became Democrats while the vast majority of right wing, anti-black, pro-segregation conservatives and descendants of slavers went Republican.
5. The entire Republican spearheaded War on Drugs was created with the expressed purpose of vilifying blacks and giving them criminal records so they could not vote.
6. Today's voter oppression laws are universally sponsored and supported by Republicans.
7. The racist American South Confederate states consistently vote Republican today.
8. The Union states from the Civil War consistently vote Democrat today.
9. African Americans stopped consistently voting Republican after the Southern Strategy and have consistently voted Democrat for half a century.
10. The KKK has supported the Republican Party in every election in the past 40 years including supporting Donald Trump.
11. Abraham Lincoln rose from the dead just so he could change his party affiliation.

OK, I'm making that last one up, but if Lincoln were alive today, he would unequivocally state that he's a Democrat in the sixth party system.

Are you fucking insane? The evidence regarding the switching of the two major parties is so overwhelming that it is embarrassing that you would make the claims you do when it is obvious to anyone that those claims are lies. Your position is beyond ridiculous.

A true patriot knows and understands the history of his country. The good, the bad, and the ugly. And he learns these things because they are essential to making his country the best it can be and to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

314   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 3:54pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Because it is the year 2017, dummy. All the former Dixiecrats are dead. All the people you referred to as being scumbag evil racists are dead and decomposed. Today's Republicans are the literal descendants of Dixiecrats and slavers.

Okay, but election records are out there on WikiPedia and Google. You can easily show me 5 racist DixieCrats who switched to the Republican party due to Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

But you can't. Why?

You know why. It's because the "parties switching" never happened. It's a huge lie to mask Democrat historical racism. You need to stop watching The Young Turks on Youtube.

315   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 4:31pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says

You can easily show me 5 racist DixieCrats who switched to the Republican party due to Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

But you can't. Why?

This entire subject is simply another stupid straw man and like everything else, I'll torch it down and point out the ridiculous hypocrisy and logical fallacy.

Assertion: Dixiecrats can only be today's Republicans if it can be demonstrated enough of them switched parties.

Fallacy 1: Not one single word was expended about why this is necessary. Without that step, the argument is a joke.
Fallacy 2: Numerous Democrats from the South have remained Democrats while actively supporting Republicans. Zell Miller from Georgia is one notable example but there are many.
Fallacy 3: There are numerous districts in the South with Democrat majorities while nevertheless voting overwhelmingly Republican. CLEARLY party and politics are not connected.
Fallacy 4: While Dan is repeatedly trying to bring the topic back to POLICY, which is all that really matters, Goran is repeatedly trying to bring the topic back to LABEL which is mostly meaningless.
Fallacy 5: It's absolutely certain that Abe Lincoln was one of the most liberal presidents the nation has ever seen. Why in hell Goran would introduce evidence from that same period to prove "Republicans are good y'all" is beyond credibility. Liberals are good. Conservatives are generally bad.

That's what I could come up with in 5 minutes. I'm sure there are numerous other fallacies I haven't addressed.

316   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 4:46pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Goran_K says

You can easily show me 5 racist DixieCrats who switched to the Republican party due to Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

But you can't. Why?

Um, I can do that, dummy.

Shit, I don't even have to type it into Google. How convenient.

One "I Feel Lucky" later...

Jesse Helms
Political parties: Democratic Party (1942–1970), Republican Party (1970–2008)

Strom Thurmond
Political parties: Democratic Party (1842–1964), Republican Party (1964–2003)
Yes, he literally was a Democrat before and during the Civil War. He's that old. Either that or Google doesn't have his start date.

Mills E. Godwin Jr.
Political parties: Democratic Party (?–1973), Republican Party (1973–1999)

Harry F. Byrd, Jr.
Political parties: Democrat, 1965-1971, Independent, 1971-1983
Sure, he couldn't bring himself to become a Republican, but he still left the Democratic Party after it cease being the party of the South.

Arthur Ravenel, Jr.
Political parties: Democratic Party (1953 to 1959), Republican Party (1959–1995)

James F. Byrnes
Political parties: Democratic Party (1951 to 1964), Republican Party (1959–1995)

Claude R. Kirk, Jr.
Political parties: Democratic Party (? to 1960), Republican Party (1960–2011)

Howard Callaway
Political parties: Democratic Party (? to 1964), Republican Party (1964–2014)

I could give dozens of more examples, but I want to spend the time looking up all the dates of the switches. I'll give you one more detail though to drive the point home. Lets use Callaway as the example since he's the last one I mentioned.

NYT: Howard H. Callaway, Strategist Who Helped G.O.P. Rise in South, Dies at 86

Howard H. Callaway, a Republican politician and strategist from the South who played leading roles in the presidential campaigns of Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford and served as secretary of the Army under both, died on March 15 in Columbus, Ga. He was 86.

“He was instrumental in the transformation of our state’s political loyalty to Republicanism,” former President Jimmy Carter, who was governor of Georgia in the early 1970s, told The Ledger-Enquirer, a Columbus newspaper, after Mr. Callaway’s death.

Mr. Carter and Mr. Callaway both rose in Georgia politics during the civil rights movement, but Mr. Callaway, like many other Southern Democrats in those years, switched parties out of frustration with the national party’s more liberal policies toward integration. When he was elected to the House in 1964, he became the first Republican to represent Georgia since Reconstruction, and he spent much of his time in office fighting civil rights bills.

That puts the another nail in the coffin of your lie that Dixiecrat politicians didn't become Republicans precisely because of their racism and the changing party system. And here's yet another nail...

Republicans, Democrats and the Great Trade of a half-century ago

Once upon a time, Democrats were the party of slavery, states' rights, secession and nullification. After the Civil War and Reconstruction, the solid Democratic South sought the "Redemption" of the former Confederate states with the reestablishment of white supremacy through violence and voter suppression. For a hundred years, the architects and enforcers of Jim Crow poll taxes and literacy tests, lynchings and cross-burnings, Klan rallies and White Citizens Councils, and segregation and separate-but-equal primarily called the Democratic Party their home.

But that was all before the Great Trade.

During the height of the civil rights movement in the middle of the 20th Century, the Republican and Democratic parties were transformed by the greatest swap of political philosophies, personalities and constituencies in modern history. The integration of the American military in 1948, the end of state-mandated separate but equal schooling with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965 upended both parties. The Democrats' slow but steady embrace of the civil rights movement and the GOP's response with its Southern Strategy literally changed the complexion of both parties.

Thanks to the Great Trade, Democrats became the party of civil rights and liberty for all, while the GOP became the bastion of backlash. Republicans acquired states' rights, secession and nullification in exchange for Democratic ownership of the general welfare, due process and equal protection in a more perfect Union. Democrats got John Lewis and Martin Luther King, Jr.; the GOP got Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. Over time, the Party of FDR, JFK and LBJ got New England and the new West, while the solid South went to the Party of Lincoln. As a result of the Great Trade, it is now the Democrats who carry on the legacy of Abraham Lincoln's "new birth of freedom" and the Great Emancipator himself.

But once again, Republicans are trying to whitewash their shameful present by instead pointing fingers at the Democrats' shameful past.

However, although I've proven that Dixiecrat politicians switched from Democrat to Republican, that's not the big picture. The real effect of the Southern Strategy is that the American Southern voter switched parties. And the evidence for that is overwhelming as well. The American South consistently voted Democrat until the Southern Strategy. Then it consistently voted Republican.

The above table demonstrates beyond any double that the American South switched parties quickly and universally. This is beyond undeniable.

None of this is surprising. As I've said, there have been six parties system in U.S. history and a seventh one in the making.

The first party system: The Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans, to the Era of Good Feelings. This ends with Jackson vs. Adams.

The second party system: the Jacksonian Democrats vs. Whigs to expansion. This ends with the dissolution of the Whigs and the tension over “States’ Rights.”

The third party system: Know-Nothings, Free-Soilers, Southern Democrats, Northern Republicans, the Populist party, and many other factions; from Bleeding Kansas, to Civil War, to Reconstruction, to the Gilded Age. This ends with the rise of Progressivism.

The fourth party system: The Progressive Era; the rise of Progressivism, to the First World War, to Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. This ends with the rise of the New Deal Coalition vs. Conservative Coalition.

The fifth party system: FDR, the New Deal Coalition vs. Conservative Coalition, the Second World War, and the rise of “States’ Rights” parties. This ends with the battle at home after WWII over Brown v. the Board, Kennedy, Civil Rights and Voting Rights under LBJ, and the rise of Goldwater Republicans.

The sixth party system: From LBJ, Civil Rights, and the Southern Realignment AKA “big switch” or “solid south switch”, to Obam. This ends with the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the election of Donald Trump

The seventh party system: What it will be, we don't know yet.

317   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 4:47pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says

This entire subject is simply another stupid straw man and like everything else, I'll torch it down and point out the ridiculous hypocrisy and logical fallacy.

Assertion: Dixiecrats can only be today's Republicans if it can be demonstrated enough of them switched parties.

Strawman? This was Dan's reasoning, not mine. He's the one who brought up Strom Thurmond, and said "This proves that Dixiecrats all became Republicans."

Then I asked "Can you name 5 dixiecrats out of the hundreds of elected dixiecrats from that time period that switched to Republican?"

Dan so far has not been able to (hint: You could make a case for 2, maybe 3).

3 people out of hundreds of Republicans means the entire Republican party switched with the racist Democrats? That is ridiculous.

What about the dozens of active senators who stayed Democrats and kept running on segregation and racist policies? So Wallace, Laney, McClellan, Talmadge, Helms, Sparkman, Ellender, Byrd (Hillary's mentor), Maddox, Connor, Rarick (I could go on and on) who stayed Democrat and racist, don't matter anymore? That makes zero sense.

See how I can actually name all of the racist Democrats who stayed racist, yet you and Dan can't even name FIVE who switched to the Republican party?

Think we're done here.

318   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 4:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Are you kidding?

You listed "Arthur Ravenel Jr." as a racist dixiecrat? Just because he chose to honor the Confederate Flag?

Name ONE single legislative action from Ravenel that was racist and hurt black people.

edit:

You also listed Bo Callaway. What the heck did Bo Callaway do during his entire legislative career that was racist?

You chose these guys to "prove your point" that racist went to the Republican party? Do you know what the word racist actually means?

319   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 4:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Goran_K says

I'd also add that the Civil Rights act passed with more Republican Support than Democrat support.

This is yet another lie. While responding to all your other lies, I let this one slip through the cracks. I will now correct that.

It is true that 80% of Republican House representatives voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act vs 63% of Democrats, and 82% of Republican senators vs 69% of Democrat senators. Now a dishonest person like you would attempt to use this information out of context and with deliberate omission to convince people that the conservative right and the Republican Party of today was more supportive of Civil Rights Act than liberals, the conservative left, or the Democratic Party of today. This is a bold-face lie that is easily exposed.

The truth is that the liberal American North voted overwhelmingly in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act regardless of party, and people were in the middle of switching parties during that time, whereas the conservative American South voted overwhelmingly against the Civil Rights Act regardless of party.

90% of the Union states, the liberal North, voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the House, and 92% in the senate. Meanwhile, former Confederate, the conservative South, voted 92% AGAINST the Civil Rights Act in the house and 95% AGAINST it in the senate. Holy shit, that changes the story. See Once you control for region, it turns out that Democrats were actually more likely to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message.

So I asked you that now you have been caught in so many lies and have been debunked so thoroughly, are you man enough to admit that today's Republican Party is the Democratic Party of the Civil War, the party of slavery and segregation and filibustering the Civil Rights Act? Or are you going to continue to make a fool out of yourself?

You cannot rewrite history in the Information Age. Real evidence is simply too easy to find. Any lie, even one good enough to full 99% of the people, will be debunked quickly by the 1% not fooled by it. That debunking will spread like wildfire in the Information Age. Today you cannot get away with lying or any form of deception. Information just flows too quickly for lies to work.

320   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 5:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Dan8267 says

The truth is that the liberal American North voted overwhelmingly in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act regardless of party, and people were in the middle of switching parties during that time, whereas the conservative American South voted overwhelmingly against the Civil Rights Act regardless of party.

"The parties switched".

Okay. I thought we already proved that never happened.

321   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 5:03pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says

"The parties switched".

Okay. I thought we already proved that never happened.

See what I mean? Dan concentrates on issues because it's only issues that define political ideology.

You concentrate on labels because with labels, you can pretend anything you want and you don't have to talk about what really matters.

Grossly dishonest.

322   Goran_K   ignore (0)   2017 Apr 27, 5:06pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says

See what I mean? Dan concentrates on issues because it's only issues that define political ideology.

You concentrate on labels because with labels, you can pretend anything you want and you don't have to talk about what really matters.

Grossly dishonest.

and calling Bo Callaway a racist isn't being dishonest?

I'm trying to focus on facts. You can't call someone a racist and then provide no evidence of racism in their career history. Then focus your discussion on the issues based on that lie. The simple fact is Callaway was seen as the anti-racist to his opponent Maddox during his campaign for governor which is why he won. Saying he was a racist Dixiecrat is just slander.

That's grossly dishonest. I'm surprised you're supporting that type of discussion.

323   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Apr 27, 5:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Goran_K says

and calling Bo Callaway a racist isn't being dishonest?

I don't really care. It's clear you don't care about the fact that the Old South has switched sides and is almost entirely Republican despite the fact that most of the issues are identical. Once again you're just arguing to protect your rancid world view.

324   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 5:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Goran_K says

Strawman? This was Dan's reasoning, not mine. He's the one who brought up Strom Thurmond, and said "This proves that Dixiecrats all became Republicans."

Oh, you are so full of shit. First off, I never stated anything that remotely could be interpreted as "Dixiecrats all became Republicans". In fact, I've said that the switching to the sixth party system took over a decade. Not everyone switched at the same time, and there were holdouts as well as people who simply died during the transition and so didn't switch parties.

However, the political platforms of the two parties most certainly did switch. This is a fact you have ran from consistently. And as Iwog has pointed out several times already, my point is that the political platform, not the label, is what matters. You are condemning your party's political platform with every post you make.

Goran_K says

Byrd (Hillary's mentor),

Goran_K says

See how I can actually name all of the racist Democrats who stayed racist

You just supported my claim that Hillary Clinton is a right-wing conservative representative of the American South and the modern Republican Party despite being an official Democrat. Thanks.

Goran_K says

yet you and Dan can't even name FIVE who switched to the Republican party?

Think we're done here.

More bullshit. First off, the Southern Strategy I keep mentioning is a strategy to get the South to vote Republican. It's all about the voter, not the politician. I've shown time and time again that the South has voted throughout history as a single block and that it switched from Democrat to Republican in the 1960s. You have said nothing to refute this.

Instead you shift the focus to whether or not specific 1950s Democratic politicians switched to the Republican Party during the 1960s/1970s. Even though that's irrelevant to the claims I made, I still demonstrated that this shift in individual politicians did happen. You demanded five name. I named eight very specific politicians and exactly when they made the switch. I only stopped at 8 instead of 80 because I have shit to do and can't spend ten hours straight gathering evidence. By the way, I've presented detailed, verifiable evidence for all my claims. You have presented almost no evidence, and the evidence you did present was demonstrated to be taken out of context, cherry picked, and misrepresentative of the truth to a degree that could not be accidental.

Furthermore, I went into detail about several politicians making the switch precisely because of the Civil Rights Act and the opposition to desegregation. This exactly demonstrates that the party switch was racially motivated and that the Republican Party became the party of racists. There can be no doubt about this because of the mountains of historical evidence. You can literally listen to the very words of the Southern Strategists explaining their strategy. Those very recordings exist to this day.

I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, what more direct evidence do you need? This is Harvey LeRoy Atwater's own words. He was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican Party, an adviser to U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and chairman of the Republican National Committee. How the fuck are you even attempting to make the argument that the racists didn't jump to the Republican Party in the 1960s? Your argument is as ridiculous as saying America lost World War II. There are living, breathing people who can directly contradict you by recalling their life experience.

Goran_K says

You listed "Arthur Ravenel Jr." as a racist dixiecrat? Just because he chose to honor the Confederate Flag?

He didn't honor the Confederate Flag. He honored the KKK's flag, you willfully ignorant moron.

There were exactly three Confederate flags shown below.

The First Confederate Flag

The Second Confederate Flag

The Third and Final Confederate Flag

None of these flags was the one that asshole Ravenel was waving. Look at the actual flag he is waving.

That is the Confederate Navy Jack. This flag was not at all popular during the Civil War. It became popular in the 1930s when the KKK adopted it as a symbol that they were still fighting the Civil War by committing acts of terrorism. They also adopted the Confederate Battle Flag. Notice the different shades of blue and different aspect ratios. Before that, no one flew the flag Ravenel flew since the Civil War, and then only the Confederate navy and army.

The Confederate Navy Jack

The Confederate Battle Flag

Embattled Banner: The true history of the Confederate flag

Meanwhile, as the civil rights movement gathered force, especially in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, defenders of segregation increasingly employed the use of the battle flag as a symbol of their cause. Most damaging to the flag’s reputation was its use in the hands of the Ku Klux Klan. Although founded by Confederate veterans almost immediately after the Civil War, the KKK did not use the Confederate flag widely or at all in its ritual in the 1860s and 1870s or during its rebirth and nationwide popularity from 1915 to the late 1920s. Only with a second rebirth in the late 1930s and 1940s did the battle flag take hold in the Klan.

The Confederate navy jack and battle flags only became popular when they were adopted by a terrorist organization in the 1930s as a symbol of racism. At this point, I almost believe you are a left-wing shill trying to make the right look like dumb asses. I cannot explain your ignorance of history you have such strong views on any other way.

325   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 5:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

iwog says

Dan concentrates on issues because it's only issues that define political ideology.

You concentrate on labels because with labels, you can pretend anything you want and you don't have to talk about what really matters.

Grossly dishonest.

Thank you for introducing some sanity to this conversation.

326   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2017 Apr 27, 5:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

What really pisses me off about this thread is that all the lies Goran_K is spewing makes whites look like they are all racist assholes. This could not be further from the truth. A very narrow subset of American whites, almost entirely from the South, are racist assholes repeating the mistakes of the past. The vast majority of white Americans, myself and Iwog included, are not at all racist and don't even think about race except when idiots make it an issue by rewriting history, suppressing votes, making things illegal just to demonize and imprison minorities.

Please don't let the ignorance and willful misrepresentation of history by Goran_K make you think his ideas are representative of anything but a fringe group of nutcases. He believes that today's Democrats are the descendants of slavers when in fact, the descendants of slaves are overwhelmingly Republican. He believes that today's Democrats are the ones who voted against and filibustered the Civil Rights Act. No, it was actually today's Republicans. He believes that those waving the KKK's symbol of racism, the Confederate navy jack, are just celebrating southern pride even though that flag isn't the Confederate flag, was never even well known until the KKK adopted it, and was adopted by the entire South precisely to be use as a white nationalist symbol. He also believes that he can take on the federal government and the trillion dollar a year military in a straight up fight. His beliefs are delusional, irrational, and completely divorced from reality. But most of all, they do not represent the beliefs of the vast majority of white Americans. They are a lunatic fringe ideology.

« First    « Previous     Comments 287 - 326 of 326     Last »


Comment as anon_d133b or log in at top of page: