So you think your nonsense below is working? You think you are fooling anyone that present day republicans in the red states support the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and the republicans of the North to crush the piece of crap racist Southerners who seceded from the Union? The North brought civil rights to blacks, not the South... I don't care if they were Whigs or Tories, republicans or democrats, it is meaningless as relates to today's racist right wing southern republicans who support teagaggers and their ilk... I never said you were a Christian, I did not think that as likely as you are defending republicans who are typically in name only Christians who ignore the teachings of Jesus Christ... "You think southern people have an innate "inner nature" that they can not change?" They choose not to. It goes back to having their asses handed to them by Lincoln and the Union in the civil war, a beat down that has damaged their psyche and given them an inferiority complex ever since...they could get over it, but they refuse to grow up (as evidenced by their continuing celebration of the the South's position in the Civil War, continuing to keep Dixie in the heart, and their refusal to genuinely become part of the Union and the 21st Century...)
First, if they are such "racist pieces of crap", then why would you care if they seceded? According to your logic, you'd be better off without them. No the north didn't bring civil rights to the blacks, nor did the south. The republicans brought civil rights to the blacks, and the democrats opposed it the whole way. You think your nonsense below is working? The teaparty movement has no stance on race one way or another, and there are numerous black tea party supporters. I'm not defending republicans, I hate republicans. I'm defending the facts and the facts are that republicans abolished slavery and established civil rights. The facts are that democrats supported slavery and segregation laws. Oh, so NOW you say that southerners have an "innate nature" that they can change, but just a moment ago you said that southerners have an "inner nature" that they can not change. Another flip flop for you huh? You are on a roll tonight Nah, the southerners had their ass handed to them because they were democrats. Democrats win a fight? LOL, good one.
First, if they are such "racist pieces of crap", then why would you care if they seceded? According to your logic, you'd be better off without them. No, we would be better off if the South had been fully crushed, their leaders exiled to Africa where the families of the American slaves could teach them what it means to be treated like animals... No the north didn't bring civil rights to the blacks, nor did the south. The republicans brought civil rights to the blacks, and the democrats opposed it the whole way. False. The North did it, not the South. The principles of Lincoln and the republicans of that time were never embraced by the South, even though people changed their political affiliation. Zell Miller was an in name only democrat, as he spoke against the democrats at the republican convention in 2004 and endorsed George Bush. Zell Miller, was always a Dixie whistling right wing cracker, and did not endorse the candidate of his own party. Typical southern Dixie loving turncoat, in name only democrat. Reminds me of the in name only Christians who ignore the teachings of Jesus Christ... You think your nonsense below is working? The teaparty movement has no stance on race one way or another, and there are numerous black tea party supporters. Numerous black tea party supporters? Are you mental? Look at the photos of tea party events and see how much pepper you see amongst all that salt. I'm not defending republicans, I hate republicans. I'm defending the facts and the facts are that republicans abolished slavery and established civil rights. The facts are that democrats supported slavery and segregation laws. The south supported slavery and segregation. The south supported Jim Crow Laws. The south fought against civil rights in the 60's. Their party affiliation at that time and at this time was not important...their positions have not changed. Clearly you focus on party as something meaningful, not the positions people take... Oh, so NOW you say that southerners have an "innate nature" that they can change, but just a moment ago you said that southerners have an "inner nature" that they can not change. Another flip flop for you huh? You are on a roll tonight. Already amended to will not in subsequent post. Please tell me you have something of substance to hang your argument on? A history lesson is your argument? Lincoln and the North were mostly republican at that time frame? That is the substance or your argument and contribution to this thread? Nah, the southerners had their ass handed to them because they were democrats. Democrats win a fight? LOL, good one. Democrats win a fight? Do you see a republican president right now? How about Senate majority leader? How about Speaker of the House. How about health care passing and being signed into law? Your true colors are shining through...and they are clearly the color of a red ass southerner...
In 1789, that list would include today's 'Blue States' of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. New York State didn't become a 'Free State' until 1799 with New Jersey following in 1804. - Spydertrader
Pissing back and forth at each other like little kids (just what THEY want....LOL!!!) as you fight over your false LEFT / RIGHT two party paradigm CON JOB! To actually think one side is better than the other is hilarious. THEY are playing the timid and docile masses right into oblivion.....illegal immigration is rampant in america by design. As usual, watch the ET Politics & Religion forum kids at their best........... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcjPFAV1foU BTW, get ready for the NEW "Yes We Can" america the majority voted for........ http://www.infowars.com/acorn-ceo-t...vement-future-will-be-worse-than-segregation/ :eek:
If progressive party vs. regressive party floats you boat better... Do you have anything else to contribute? Apart from a rinse and regurgitation cycle of Alex Jones, that is...
Racial slurs from a democrat, nothing new there... No, no specific geographical area brought civil rights to blacks. Politics aren't divided into geographical areas, they are divided by people who share views. There are members of both political parties in geographical area both then and now. There were dems and reps in both the north and the south, and still are. There is not a "north party" and "south party". There is a republican party and democrat party, and the both have numerous members from each region. The members of the democrat party in the north and the south supported segregation, and the republicans of that party (in both the north and the south) supported abolishing it. Those are the facts, sorry if you don't like them, but you can't change them. Yes, there are numerous black tea party supporters, and even activists. Sorry about your ignorance on that topic. You look at a few pictures and make a judgment, not unlike someone who looks at a ghetto, crack infested area full of blacks and decides that blacks are naturally prone to such behavior, interesting... No, "the south" didn't support segregation, democrats (northern ones too) did, and republicans (southern ones too) did not. Those are the facts, cry about them if you want, but they wont change. And yes, political party is a lot more meaningful than geography as far as politics is concerned. You seem to think that geography is somehow more important than political party with regard to politics. Talk about a logical faux pas :eek: Yes, you "amended" (ie flip flopped) to will. "Cracker"? "Red ass southerner"? Not surprising that a democrat thinks that such racist terminology is acceptable.
BTW, speaking of illegals......... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk3OMRqO7aY&feature=related :eek: :eek: :eek: BUSTED!!!