patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Now I don't know what percentage of Republicans are racist. I suspect it's a minority, but the ones that are racist are the most vocal. They are the Tea Party members holding up signs like this:

But it wasn't a Racist Tea Party posting that pic, it was you.

Are you a Racist, Tea Party member or just a Retarded Race baiter, and a Liar and cheat too?

Tenouncetrout, are you really that dumb or do you think that the readers of this forum are dumb enough to fall for such an obvious and insincere misdirection? I bring up that the Tea Parties are widely known as racists and show one of their own messages that clearly proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then you try to imply I'm a racist because I pointed out the racism of the Tea Party? WTF? How daft are you?

That's like saying that a Jewish photographer who photographed the mass graves of Jews that were killed by the Nazis in order to make sure history never forgets that atrocity is guilty of the Holocaust himself. That's stupidity on a level I cannot even imagine and it should not be tolerated. I will always call bullshit on someone who uses such a cheap and dishonest tactic.

131

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 5:50am

The OP posts that race baiting pic, then claims people are marching around holding signs with that pic. Well where's the picture of the tea party rally members holding the sign with that pic?

Really, do I have to freakin' spoon feed you the evidence. All I did, LITERALLY, was to go to Google image search and type in "Obama racist signs". I didn't even have to type in Tea Party and I got a bazillion results talking about the Tea Party's racist signs.

Google returned a motherload of Tea Party rallies showing Obama as a monkey, as a chimp, as a Muslim, in a KKK outfit, as a shoe-shine boy. JFC, it's not that hard. The evidence almost comes to you.

I mean, really, at this point you are just denying the facts.

132

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 5:53am

the sign carrier could be a leftist plant posing for the camera. Right?

Yes, all 10 thousand of them are leftist plants, which is why they were not ostracized by the other Tea Party members surrounding them. The Tea Party is made up of 93% leftist plants.

133

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 5:54am

I would bet a small fortune that 90% of the pics posted here, claiming to be made by a tea party member or of a tea party member. Was Photo shopped by a Liberal.

Just like the moon landing.

134

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 6:34am

Since only conservative minded people hold each person accountable to a moral based standard for their personal behavior

No decent person would condone the act of violence you mentioned. It's not a liberal-conservative issue. People have the right to free speech and anyone who would act violently (say by stamping a women's head) in response to free speech is a scumbag and should be thrown in jail.

I don't know what you would consider "holding another person morally accountable". A person's morality can only govern that person's behavior, not another's. That's why we have law.

If you are implying that conservatives have a higher moral standard than liberals, then I'd say that's empirically false. Liberals have demonstrated time and again that they are more compassionate, particularly to the poor and misfortune, than conservatives. While conservatives cheer when they hear Rick Perry executed more people than any other governor and shout "Yes" to the question "should society let a man w/o insurance die", you really can't make a case that conservatives are highly moral people.

There's an old saying: The Christian Right is neither. Now I'm an atheist, so I don't follow the mythical B.S. in the Bible, but I was raised Catholic and taught by viscous Catholic nuns who would beat you with a ruler if you misbehaved -- and there is nothing scarier than a Catholic nun. So I know as much, if not more, about JFC and his teachings than any fundamentalist.

I can tell you that Jesus was the mother of all socialists. He said that in order to enter heaven you had to give up all of your possessions to the poor, that it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god, that whatever you do to the least of his people (everyone) you do unto him. Jesus believed in redistribution of wealth, turning the other cheek when attacked by enemies, forgiving any person for any wrongdoing, and the only time he ever got pissed off was at the bankers. Jesus was far more left than Ted Kennedy. He would have been appalled at the idea of gun ownership, all of the wars America has fought, and the death penalty (which, I heard, he had a bit of first-hand experience with).

At least east-coast, liberal, Democrat-voting Catholics aren't hypocrites when it comes to following Jesus. They walk the walk whereas right-wing fundamentalists just talk the talk. And despite all the bad things I could say about Christians (including Catholics) -- and it's a hell of a lot -- at least the liberal Christians actually follow the teachings of Jesus instead of perverting them like the right-wing does.

As for me, I have a very high moral standard. And when I put morality before material interests, it's not because I'm afraid some god will punish me for immoral acts or think that I'll be rewarded for moral ones. That would be a cheap morality. No, I do what I believe is morally right for its own sake, not for any reward/punishment system.

Furthermore, my morality is based on principles, evolutionary science, game theory, and social dynamics. As such, I consider moral issues that are far beyond the comprehension of anyone who bases morality on Bronze and Iron Age mythology. I can refine my moral understanding with mathematically precision, literally. Turning morality into a science advances morality as much as physics was advanced when it was turned from a philosophy into a science.

135

Done! 2011 Sep 28, 6:53am

I bring up that the Tea Parties are widely known as racists

You mean widely accused, there's a difference.

But that's indicative of the problem, Libs say, there for it is.
Where's the Tea Party members on this board, spouting racist views? To date, every one making those claims, and or speaking for the Tea Party have been Liberals.

Liberals are the only racist I see. They are trying to place that bag of Doo Doo on the Tea Party door step, ringing the door bell then running away giggling.

But the Tea Party never comes out and steps on it, how come?
I bet you guys are the same racists that were so vocal on Craigslist political forum, claiming to be republicans. I'd expect that if THEY weren't Liberal plants there as well, they would be over here all over the Tea Party race thing posting pictures of buckwheat and water melons. And just generally being as ugly here as they are on CL.

136

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 7:02am

Dan8267 says

I bring up that the Tea Parties are widely known as racists

You mean widely accused, there's a difference.

Yes, there is a difference. No, I don't mean "accused". And the two statements are not contradictory. The Tea Party is widely accused and widely known of being racist. Did you even click on the "Obama racist signs" link? The evidence is overwhelming, as overwhelming as the evidence for evolution.

To deny that the Tea Party members are racist is like denying that the Nazis were anti-semitic. It is a ridiculous claim in light of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Such a claim cannot be taken seriously.

137

Bap33 2011 Sep 28, 7:54am

Dan's last post is fiction. No reason to comment about Fictional Dan from Fictionville, Notachanceland.

Danville - home of the whopper.

138

leo707 2011 Sep 28, 8:05am

Jesus believed in redistribution of wealth, turning the other cheek when attacked by enemies, forgiving any person for any wrongdoing, and the only time he ever got pissed off was at the bankers. Jesus was far more left than Ted Kennedy. He would have been appalled at the idea of gun ownership, all of the wars America has fought, and the death penalty (which, I heard, he had a bit of first-hand experience with).

I too am probably more familiar with the bible than most fundamentalists. Yes, the bible does support the claims that you mentioned, but the bible is also contradictory, and when justifying any "philosophy" cherry picking is required. I may go so far as to say that any life philosophy, "moral" or not, could be supported by the bible.

Matthew 10
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Luke 14
14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

139

Patrick 2011 Sep 28, 8:05am

Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense

Your account is now disabled.

140

leo707 2011 Sep 28, 8:07am

MarsAttacks! says

"If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew" -- Barack Obama speaking before the Congressional Black Caucus over the weekend

At least he didn't flub it by saying "If asking a Jew to pay the same tax rate asa billionaire". Now that would have been bad.

It was a flub, he quickly corrected himself to say "janitor" instead of Jew. Why would you portray this as anything other than a flub?

141

terriDeaner 2011 Sep 28, 8:22am

Holy crap! Heads rolling left and right this afternoon!

Tenouncetrout says

Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense

Your account is now disabled.

goatkick says

You're such a whiny bitch

Your account is now disabled.

142

Patrick 2011 Sep 28, 8:41am

Yup, I wish them well, elsewhere.

New rule: golden one. Actually a very old rule.

Please try to maintain a sense of good will and cooperation.

143

Done! 2011 Sep 28, 8:42am

Tenouncetrout says

Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense

Your account is now disabled.

I'm quite certain that is taken out of context, I didn't directly call anyone an ignorant Ahole.

Wasn't there an "other wise, you're" in front of that, and I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, other than closing what ever I was saying?

144

Patrick 2011 Sep 28, 8:54am

Nope, the context was pretty full of hate too.

145

leo707 2011 Sep 28, 9:09am

Yup, I wish them well, elsewhere.

New rule: golden one. Actually a very old rule.

Please try to maintain a sense of good will and cooperation.

This is not the one, but I got one of these Dr. Bob paintings at my front door.

146

Patrick 2011 Sep 28, 9:33am

Wow, that's an excellent forum policy in a nutshell.

OK, I adopt it as the Patrick.net Forum Motto. Thanks!

147

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 10:04am

MarsAttacks! says

Like when people say things like this?

I don't get what point you are trying to make, so I can't answer your question.

Dan's last post is fiction. No reason to comment about Fictional Dan from Fictionville, Notachanceland.

Danville - home of the whopper.

With analysis like that, do I even need to make a counter-argument? The posting is simply an assertion with no specifics, no evidence, and no reasoning. Although, I really don't get why Bap33 would think anyone would believe his assertion when I consistently back up everything I say with references. It's like the conservatives on this site have some major blind spots to anything that contradicts their beliefs.

leoj707 says

Yes, the bible does support the claims that you mentioned, but the bible is also contradictory, and when justifying any "philosophy" cherry picking is required. I may go so far as to say that any life philosophy, "moral" or not, could be supported by the bible.

True, the Bible does contradict itself greatly. No surprise since it was written by many different people with many different social, economic, and political agendas. However, I would not go so far as to say that the New Testament, which is the basis of Christianity, could justify any philosophy. Many perhaps, but not any.

The New Testaments and particularly the Gospels, which deal most directly with the life and alleged believes of Jesus, is pretty consistent in philosophical, if not at all historical, content. The philosophy is basically love your neighbor, be compassionate, share everything you have, treat everyone like you would treat Jesus. Pretty much socialist philosophy. And again, this is coming from a hard-core atheist, so I'm pretty objective as I have no religious agenda unless you count promoting rationalism over mysticism.

Tenouncetrout says
Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense

Darn, that message got deleted before I had a chance to read it. So, unfortunately, I cannot reply to it to show exactly why it's wrong, but I'm pretty sure from the quote above, it must have been a really lame argument.

All I can say is that good arguments go: point, counter-point, point, counter-point. Saying something insulting but ultimately vague and hollow like "just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense" is usually a pretty good indication that the speaker is on thin ice and has nothing substantial with which to counter his opponent.

In rebutting an opponent on any subject matter, you should address the specific points your opponent made and explain in concise, clear, and verifiable detail about why those points are wrong. This should be done one by one for each point you wish to counter. Ignoring those points and simply calling your opponent names has never convinced anyone. Debating isn't rocket science. Maybe I should debate myself just to show the conservatives how it's done properly. Naturally, I'd have to play devil's advocate to do so, but if it gets the ultra-cons to behave in a more productive manner, it would be worth the time.

Nope, the context was pretty full of hate too.

Whatever Tenouncetrout (or is it Done! now) said, I'm willing to forgive him in exchange for a small token of rationality. I've given a list of 10 reasons Obama is a really bad president. I could probably give about as many examples of bad decision making for just about every president up to and including Kennedy. (I'm really not enough of a history buff to go further than that.) Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. They all make mistakes and most, if not all, sell out.

So Tenouncetrout, here's a little exercise you can do to prove to us that you are a rational person and not a wingnut like the Tea Party members. Give me an honest list of ten ways in which George W. Bush majorly fucked up as president. This should be a really easy assignment even for a Republican. I'll even give you a little help. You could use some of the items on my list of Obama no-no's. If you can't come up with a list of ten major Bush screw-ups, then how can we take your arguments seriously?

148

leo707 2011 Sep 28, 10:16am

The New Testaments and particularly the Gospels, which deal most directly with the life and alleged believes of Jesus, is pretty consistent in philosophical, if not at all historical, content. The philosophy is basically love your neighbor, be compassionate, share everything you have, treat everyone like you would treat Jesus. Pretty much socialist philosophy.

Just a reminder that the passages I quoted "hate your family" "I bring not peace but a sword" are new testament Jesus quotes. ;)

Maybe I should debate myself just to show the conservatives how it's done properly. Naturally, I'd have to play devil's advocate to do so, but if it gets the ultra-cons to behave in a more productive manner, it would be worth the time.

I don't think that it would change the uber-cons behavior. While there are some good arguments from a conservative perspective, with which one could rationally argue, they still would get your alter-ego labeled as a RINO. While the teabagger/neo-con/ditto head types often start with good intentions I have not seen any arguments from them that could be made to realistically fit in your "good argument" model (without just looking like a straw man).

149

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 10:18am

Nope, the context was pretty full of hate too.

The hate is swelling in you now. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment, you make yourself more my servant.

150

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 10:26am

leoj707 says

While there are some good arguments from a conservative perspective, with which one could rationally argue, they still would get your alter-ego labeled as a RINO.

There was a time when Republicans could debate rationally. I guess all the rational people left the party.

The thing is there are good conservative issues out there. The national debt is a major problem. The current implementations of social security and medicare are screwed up. Even gun rights, to an extent, make sense.

The so called "Rinos" are the Republican Party's only hope of not being destroyed by the Tea Party. But I guess, at this point it's inevitable that the Republican Party is going to die and it deserves to.

The question is, what happens next? Does the Democratic Party become unchallenged and thereby worsen year after year? Do Democrats fraction off into two separate parties due to internal disputes now that they have no common enemy? Does a new party rise from the ashes of the Republican Party? If so, is it rising from the Rinos or the crazy as bat-shit droppings?

I think the fall of the Republican Party will be like the fall of Communism. It will replace an evil empire, a known enemy, with chaos as a power vacuum looks to be filled.

151

Patrick 2011 Sep 28, 10:34am

Darn, that message got deleted before I had a chance to read it. So, unfortunately, I cannot reply to it to show exactly why it's wrong, but I'm pretty sure from the quote above, it must have been a really lame argument.

I have a copy. So here you go:

OH My God, somebody posted pictures on the internet, I clicked on some of those links I swear I did, and I did not find one single Tea Party affiliated web site period. Just random websites, of random people posting pics that if Obama was anything but black, would be a non issue. Just some one bent out of shape with the current president and lampooning him or making digital effigies.

Even the only blatant racist sign on that page makes no political affiliation at all. Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense or a Liberal doing it in his proxy.
I don't know, you be the judge. But there's nothing on any of the ten links I clicked on that even mentioned the Tea Party.

So how does it feel to have your ass handed back to you, for being a Nancy Pelosi Boy?

Nancy Pelosi Boy = Presents erroneous information they didn't read, that counters their argument, as facts and truths to make their argument.

152

Â¥ 2011 Sep 28, 11:10am

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2ua

I think the fall of the Republican Party will be like the fall of Communism. It will replace an evil empire, a known enemy with chaos as a power vacuum looks to be filled.

I think the US actually HAS a soviet-quality economy now.

They may have blew themselves up economically in the late 1980s, but they didn't have reserve currency status to abuse. Well, maybe they did, but only Cuba and some African shitholes would take their currency so the ruble wasn't much of a currency bloc.

When I was pooing my pants in the late 1960s per capita debt in the US was under $10,000 per person ($65,000 in today's money).

Now it's over $200,000, over 3X over inflation alone.

We've got a fall coming here at home, too.

FWIW, the Reagan Era started with per-capita debt at under $30,000 and ended over $60,000.

Clinton: $80,000 & $130,000.

Bush Jr took that $130,000 and left it at $225,000.

The ~~last~~ most recent print for Obama has the per-capita systemic debt at $220,000.

153

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 11:17am

> I did not find one single Tea Party affiliated web site period.

I'd be surprised if the Tea Party had computers or knew how to use them. Nevertheless, the pictures were taken at Tea Party rallies as numerous of the websites discuss. Google's image search lets you go directly to the image or to the web page that hosts it. So it's not hard to tell they people pictured were Tea Party protesters.

Of course, you don't even have to rely on the Internet. Television news coverage of Tea Party protests have shown amble examples of racism including many of the signs revealed in Google's image search.

- Just random websites, of random people posting pics that if Obama was anything but black, would be a non issue.

No, it's ok to lampoon someone who happens to be black. Thre are plenty of non-racist political cartoons about Obama. But when you make him out to be a witch doctor or a shoe-shine boy, it's not hard to read between the lines. The intent is to dehumanize him based on race. That intent is clear.

When a sign dresses Obama as a Muslim and calls him by his middle name Huessein, it's a transparent attempt to falsely associated Obama with Sadam Heussein, who was falsely associated with Al Qaeda by the Bush administration. It is also obvious that the false association with Islam is meant to invoke religious bigotry. But perhaps most disturbing is the acceptance of such blatant distribution of misinformation.

Personally, I don't get why anyone would distribute such easily disprovable disinformation in the Information Age. You say something ridiculous and you have to apologize for it for the rest of your life. The Internet preserves all of your mistakes, often in video format nowadays. That alone should make people more cautious about getting their facts right.

- Just an ignorant ass hole spouting nonsense or a Liberal doing it in his proxy.

Yeah, I don't get the utter paranoia about there being leftist planted in the Tea Party rallies to make the Tea Party look bad. The Tea Party has been pretty consistent in its vocalization including in heavily screened situations like the Republican / Tea Party Presidential Debate. It wasn't a leftist plant screaming out "YES!" to let him die.

Now there have been many occasions of the FBI infiltrating anti-war groups, radical groups composed of 67-year-old retired librarians and keeping detail records on them. That you can Google. Scary stuff.

But the left doesn't use these tactics. You're thinking of people like Andrew Breitbart, the pimp-wannabe would took down Acorn by secreting recording hundreds of encounters until he found something bad and then used that to imply that it was representative of the entire organization. The right does use such tactics, but the left is too busy eating brownies and smoking pot to get their shit together enough to pull something like that off or to even care enough to.

- there's nothing on any of the ten links I clicked on that even mentioned the Tea Party.

The image I linked to of Obama as a witchdoctor came from a Word Press article. Click the link and let the web page load. Then press Control+F and type "tea party" and click Next (I'm using Firefox, so adjust for your browser if different). You'll find many tea party references. You'll also see lots of ridiculously racist signs like "Obamanomics: Monkey see, Monkey spend". "Monkey" was a racist term for Africans -- see Clerks II and say hi to Pillowpants for me.

I can go to just about any of the images returned on the first page of Google's results and they pretty much all say the signs come from Tea Partiers. What other rally did you think would be using such rhetoric and imagery? Comic-Con?

- So how does it feel to have your ass handed back to you, for being a Nancy Pelosi Boy?

Yeah, I'm not getting why you feel like you've made a great argument. You certainly seem impressed by how you've rebutted my arguments, but what exactly is your thinking? You aren't even challenging me to think. From my perspective, this is more like a charity gig, like I'm a professional athlete running along side someone training to be in the Special Olympics in order to encourage him to run a little faster, meanwhile, the guy is yelling "you're so slow" while falling behind.

I'm deliberately dumbing-down the subject matter and taking it real slow so that you'll understand my points and be able to address them, or at least attempt to, and yet you still seem to be struggling. I mean, really, do you honestly believe that there's a good case to be made that the Tea Party isn't racist after all that we've seen?

You gotta recognize when some arguments have no where to go and are just better left discarded. I even gave you an "in" by stating that I thought the Tea Party is a vocal but small minority of the Republicans. You could have gone with that and distance yourself from all that crazy hate. Instead you embraced it. Can you see how that was a bad move?

By the way, I don't get your "Nancy Pelosi Boy" reference or why you define that term in such a way. I know conservatives hate Pelosi because

1. She's a woman
2. She's a Democrat
3. She's from San Francisco. You know that city with all the gay people! (And conservatives hate gays even more than they hate liberals.)
4. She had power because she was Speaker of the House.

But come on, is there any thing else that makes Pelosi craw up the conservative's butt so much?

And if you're implying that I'm somehow a Pelosi fanboy, you're wrong. I'd have to look her up on ontheissues.org just to find out what her policies are. So I have no idea about whether or not I'd vote for someone like her.

154

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 11:38am

Bellingham Bob says

I think the US actually HAS a soviet-quality economy now.

Perhaps, but that's not the point I was trying to make. During the cold war, America had one enemy. It was a big enemy, but it was a rational enemy and one that we knew quite well. After the Soviet Union fell, all the former Soviet states started their old rivalries again including ethnic bigotry. Some of the nukes from the former Soviet Union were now in the handles of less stable states. So instead of having one large rational enemy, the U.S. had many small and irrational enemies. For a while it was a less stable and more dangerous situation.

Bellingham Bob says

When I was pooing my pants in the late 1960s per capita debt in the US was under $10,000 per person ($65,000 in today's money).

I wasn't even a twinkle in my parents' eyes at a Ramones' concert at that time. I only became aware of the national debt around 1985 and I was just a kid at the time but I knew Reagan was screwing things up by his deficit spending.

Fiscally, I am quite conservative. I guess I'd be a Rino if I didn't think the Republicans had been taken over by lunatics. Can a Rino be big on human and civil rights?

Then again, I couldn't be a Republican because I would shift the tax burden heavily onto the richest 0.5% of the population. The first $100k/yr you make would be tax free, but everything over the frist $1 million would be taxed at 90%. And I would reduce spending dramatically (see the NY TImes challenge in one of the older threads).

Capital gains would be taxed at 100% for anything held for less than a month. Each month the gains would decrease by 1% until 8 and a third years later, the capital gains are taxed at 0%. This would end all bubbles. But then, after the capital gains tax (whether 0% or more) is applied, all capital gains would be considered normal income and taxed appropriately. This would prevent CEOs from fleecing everyone and escaping taxation.

And I say any corporation large enough to make political contributions or hire lobbyists is large enough to be broken down by anti-trust laws. One of the prime purposes of anti-trust laws is to make sure that corporations don't become large enough to take control of government.

155

terriDeaner 2011 Sep 28, 12:43pm

Then again, I couldn't be a Republican because I would shift the tax burden heavily onto the richest 0.5% of the population. The first $100k/yr you make would be tax free, but everything over the frist $1 million would be taxed at 90%. And I would reduce spending dramatically (see the NY TImes challenge in one of the older threads).

Capital gains would be taxed at 100% for anything held for less than a month. Each month the gains would decrease by 1% until 8 and a third years later, the capital gains are taxed at 0%. This would end all bubbles. But then, after the capital gains tax (whether 0% or more) is applied, all capital gains would be considered normal income and taxed appropriately. This would prevent CEOs from fleecing everyone and escaping taxation.

And I say any corporation large enough to make political contributions or hire lobbyists is large enough to be broken down by anti-trust laws. One of the prime purposes of anti-trust laws is to make sure that corporations don't become large enough to take control of government.

Interesting proposal.

156

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 2:25pm

And while we're into fact checking, what was Tenouncetrout/Done! thinking when he posted on this thread?

It's almost like he lives in an alternative universe where things are kind of the same as ours but with freaky differences like Obama still being a senator. OMFG! Tenouncetrout IS A SLIDER!!!

157

Bap33 2011 Sep 28, 3:14pm

The posting is simply an assertion with no specifics

You are correct, your fairy tale post was that exactly. Maybe you didn't realize those same lame-o upbringing stories, that are text-book excuses for being anti-God, and anti-Conservative, have already been used on here by a few other self-proclaimed anti-right posters before you. Your side needs to figure out who gets to use that story and cut down on the copy-cat posters. Carry on.

158

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 3:20pm

MarsAttacks! says

But it sure does when a Tea Party hack says something equally stupid?

When a member of the Tea Party says something anti-semitic or racist, he probably means it. It is no coincidence that the Tea Party protesters happen to be descendant from slave owners, KKK members, and lynchers of black people.

Those in the Tea Party come from families that supported Strom Thurmond (the asshole who filibustered the Civil Rights Act), were pro-segregation, were against blacks having the right to vote, were against legal interracial marriages, and are currently against legal gay marriages. It's not a coincidence that all these things go together. They make up a culture of a few people having social, political, and economic control over another large group. And that culture is evil.

Of course, all the ultra-conservatives will try to deny the facts I presented and demand proof that the individual tea party members are descended from slave owners or came from families that supported segregation. They'll deny these facts even though it is painfully obvious to every one else that this is true.

Well, let them Google the evidence themselves. Even if I presented freakin' DNA lineages that would not sway the ultra-cons into accepting the ugly truth about the history of the people who make up the Tea Party. Ultra-cons want to whitewash history because any honest telling of the racial bigotry of the south doesn't make Southerners look very moral or upstanding.

The Southerns should try to make themselves look better by distinguishing themselves from their ancestors and renouncing all the old, stupid ideas. It would be a more effective strategy than white washing history.

159

Dan8267 2011 Sep 28, 3:29pm

Dan8267 says

The posting is simply an assertion with no specifics

You are correct, your fairy tale post was that exactly.

Dude, that's the kind of lame, deliberate misinterpreting comeback my six-year-old nephew would make, if I had a six-year-old nephew. Please put more thought into your rebuttals.

Maybe you didn't realize those same lame-o upbringing stories, that are text-book excuses for being anti-God, and anti-Conservative, have already been used on here by a few other self-proclaimed anti-right posters before you.

I have no freakin' clue what you're talking about here. Does any non-ultra-con have an English translation of this? I can't be the only one here who thinks this is gibberish.