It's almost like you have a brain. But then my dog made more sense and convinced me otherwise.
During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
A little more info for you since you are clueless.
The article actually supports Sledog's statement. The Democratic Party didn't start the Klan, but the early clan had a lot of democrat members. It wouldn't be fair not to point out that democrats in the early to mid 1900's were different than democrats today. But stating democrats vs the democratic party started the KKK isn't completely false. I guess it is misleading when compared to democrats today.
The article actually supports Sledog's statement. The Democratic Party didn't start the Klan, but the early clan had a lot of democrat members. It wouldn't be fair not to point out that democrats in the early to mid 1900's were different than democrats today. But stating democrats vs the democratic party started the KKK isn't completely false.
I think that's the point. Projecting Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, on who they are today is FS.
Not to mention that the governor who made that comment, that sledog is parroting, apologized. Cause it's irrelevant and meaningless today. It's FS of Democrats to have supported slavery back in the day. Just like today it's FS of Republicans to not support individual freedoms of being gay. Or the racist shit they said about Obama the last 8 years. And it's FS of Democrats right now to be wasting their time to protest Trump. Get the fuck over it.
The article actually supports Sledog's statement. The Democratic Party didn't start the Klan, but the early clan had a lot of democrat members. It wouldn't be fair not to point out that democrats in the early to mid 1900's were different than democrats today. But stating democrats vs the democratic party started the KKK isn't completely false.
I think that's the point. Projecting Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, on who they are today is FS.
Not to mention that the governor who made that comment, that sledog is parroting, apologized. Cause it's irrelevant and meaningless today. It's FS of Democrats to have supported slavery back in the day. Just like today it's FS of Republicans to not support individual freedoms of being gay. Or the racist shit they said about Obama the last 8 years. And it's FS of Democrats right now to be wasting their time to protest Trump. Get the fuck over it.
The article actually supports Sledog's statement. The Democratic Party didn't start the Klan, but the early clan had a lot of democrat members. It wouldn't be fair not to point out that democrats in the early to mid 1900's were different than democrats today. But stating democrats vs the democratic party started the KKK isn't completely false.
I think that's the point. Projecting Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, on who they are today is FS.
Not to mention that the governor who made that comment, that sledog is parroting, apologized. Cause it's irrelevant and meaningless today. It's FS of Democrats to have supported slavery back in the day. Just like today it's FS of Republicans to not support individual freedoms of being gay. Or the racist shit they said about Obama the last 8 years. And it's FS of Democrats right now to be wasting their time to protest Trump. Get the fuck over it.
There's a faction of the GOP who hate gays.
There's a faction of the Democratic party who hate whites.
The article actually supports Sledog's statement. The Democratic Party didn't start the Klan, but the early clan had a lot of democrat members. It wouldn't be fair not to point out that democrats in the early to mid 1900's were different than democrats today. But stating democrats vs the democratic party started the KKK isn't completely false.
I think that's the point. Projecting Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, on who they are today is FS.
Not to mention that the governor who made that comment, that sledog is parroting, apologized. Cause it's irrelevant and meaningless today. It's FS of Democrats to have supported slavery back in the day. Just like today it's FS of Republicans to not support individual freedoms of being gay. Or the racist shit they said about Obama the last 8 years. And it's FS of Democrats right now to be wasting their time to protest Trump. Get the fuck over it.
The problem is you never get over stereotyping conservatives. Someone posts mean stuff about Obozo's daughter and you say it's racist republicans.
You claim the high ground when more republicans voted for civil rights than dems so who really passed that law?
I am pointing your hypocrisy out to you.
Knock it the fuck off and maybe we can get over it!
The article actually supports Sledog's statement. The Democratic Party didn't start the Klan, but the early clan had a lot of democrat members. It wouldn't be fair not to point out that democrats in the early to mid 1900's were different than democrats today. But stating democrats vs the democratic party started the KKK isn't completely false.
I think that's the point. Projecting Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, on who they are today is FS.
Not to mention that the governor who made that comment, that sledog is parroting, apologized. Cause it's irrelevant and meaningless today. It's FS of Democrats to have supported slavery back in the day. Just like today it's FS of Republicans to not support individual freedoms of being gay. Or the racist shit they said about Obama the last 8 years. And it's FS of Democrats right now to be wasting their time to protest Trump. Get the fuck over it.
There's a faction of the GOP who hate gays.
There's a faction of the Democratic party who hate whites.
What's the fucking difference?
You can't choose to be white (exceptions: Michael Jackson, Sammy Sosa) but you can choose to be gay.
The article actually supports Sledog's statement. The Democratic Party didn't start the Klan, but the early clan had a lot of democrat members. It wouldn't be fair not to point out that democrats in the early to mid 1900's were different than democrats today. But stating democrats vs the democratic party started the KKK isn't completely false.
I think that's the point. Projecting Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, on who they are today is FS.
Not to mention that the governor who made that comment, that sledog is parroting, apologized. Cause it's irrelevant and meaningless today. It's FS of Democrats to have supported slavery back in the day. Just like today it's FS of Republicans to not support individual freedoms of being gay. Or the racist shit they said about Obama the last 8 years. And it's FS of Democrats right now to be wasting their time to protest Trump. Get the fuck over it.
There's a faction of the GOP who hate gays.
There's a faction of the Democratic party who hate whites.
What's the fucking difference?
You can't choose to be white (exceptions: Michael Jackson, Sammy Sosa) but you can choose to be gay.
HTH
That makes absolute sense on why the Democratic party can build their base on hypocrisy.
Trump played the game better, and that's definitely why he won. But are we really happy with a political system that rewards spreading propaganda?
John Oliver showed a graph that basically said that 60% (40% conservative and 20% liberal) of the "news" that was shared on Facebook was bullshit. And that a surprising number of Americans now get their news exclusively through social media.
Regardless of the outcome, we should all we wary of this wave of anti-intellectualism (both sides are guilty) that has only made us dumber and more divided as a country.
I know we all like to joke about "x is your source???" but we should start taking that question more seriously.
The scary part is that people believe some of the shit that gets posted. Common sense is now a superpower.
I think people got hit with an overload of info and stopped bothering to verify its authenticity. And since social media is just an algorithm designed to filter info to you that you like and choose, it's easy to see how that "bad" info would further support people's beliefs and prejudices, rather than provide them with facts that inform or challenge their assumptions.
It's like how Trump would lie so much and so fast during interviews and debates that the moderators couldn't keep up with the fact checking, much less challenge him on most of it. The few times they did challenge him, he literally blamed it on having read it on the internet, end of story. He played right into that inefficiency, and he won because of it.
Disagree. Trump won because half the country is tired of hearing politicians prattle on about bathrooms and body parts, when the average working stiff couldn't give two shits about that stuff, and just wants job security.
Trump played the game better, and that's definitely why he won. But are we really happy with a political system that rewards spreading propaganda?
John Oliver showed a graph that basically said that 60% (40% conservative and 20% liberal) of the "news" that was shared on Facebook was bullshit. And that a surprising number of Americans now get their news exclusively through social media.
Regardless of the outcome, we should all we wary of this wave of anti-intellectualism (both sides are guilty) that has only made us dumber and more divided as a country.
I know we all like to joke about "x is your source???" but we should start taking that question more seriously.
The scary part is that people believe some of the shit that gets posted. Common sense is now a superpower.
It's sad to see how far this board has fallen when this post isn't getting destroyed. Let me help...
You. Are. Those. People.
Destroying a Sledog or Hondo poast is like screaming "Fire Romar".
It's easy and obvious and doesn't make a damned bit of difference.
Trump played the game better, and that's definitely why he won. But are we really happy with a political system that rewards spreading propaganda?
John Oliver showed a graph that basically said that 60% (40% conservative and 20% liberal) of the "news" that was shared on Facebook was bullshit. And that a surprising number of Americans now get their news exclusively through social media.
Regardless of the outcome, we should all we wary of this wave of anti-intellectualism (both sides are guilty) that has only made us dumber and more divided as a country.
I know we all like to joke about "x is your source???" but we should start taking that question more seriously.
The scary part is that people believe some of the shit that gets posted. Common sense is now a superpower.
I think people got hit with an overload of info and stopped bothering to verify its authenticity. And since social media is just an algorithm designed to filter info to you that you like and choose, it's easy to see how that "bad" info would further support people's beliefs and prejudices, rather than provide them with facts that inform or challenge their assumptions.
It's like how Trump would lie so much and so fast during interviews and debates that the moderators couldn't keep up with the fact checking, much less challenge him on most of it. The few times they did challenge him, he literally blamed it on having read it on the internet, end of story. He played right into that inefficiency, and he won because of it.
Disagree. Trump won because half the country is tired of hearing politicians prattle on about bathrooms and body parts, when the average working stiff couldn't give two shits about that stuff, and just wants job security.
Trump played the game better, and that's definitely why he won. But are we really happy with a political system that rewards spreading propaganda?
John Oliver showed a graph that basically said that 60% (40% conservative and 20% liberal) of the "news" that was shared on Facebook was bullshit. And that a surprising number of Americans now get their news exclusively through social media.
Regardless of the outcome, we should all we wary of this wave of anti-intellectualism (both sides are guilty) that has only made us dumber and more divided as a country.
I know we all like to joke about "x is your source???" but we should start taking that question more seriously.
The scary part is that people believe some of the shit that gets posted. Common sense is now a superpower.
I think people got hit with an overload of info and stopped bothering to verify its authenticity. And since social media is just an algorithm designed to filter info to you that you like and choose, it's easy to see how that "bad" info would further support people's beliefs and prejudices, rather than provide them with facts that inform or challenge their assumptions.
It's like how Trump would lie so much and so fast during interviews and debates that the moderators couldn't keep up with the fact checking, much less challenge him on most of it. The few times they did challenge him, he literally blamed it on having read it on the internet, end of story. He played right into that inefficiency, and he won because of it.
Disagree. Trump won because half the country is tired of hearing politicians prattle on about bathrooms and body parts, when the average working stiff couldn't give two shits about that stuff, and just wants job security.
Trump played the game better, and that's definitely why he won. But are we really happy with a political system that rewards spreading propaganda?
John Oliver showed a graph that basically said that 60% (40% conservative and 20% liberal) of the "news" that was shared on Facebook was bullshit. And that a surprising number of Americans now get their news exclusively through social media.
Regardless of the outcome, we should all we wary of this wave of anti-intellectualism (both sides are guilty) that has only made us dumber and more divided as a country.
I know we all like to joke about "x is your source???" but we should start taking that question more seriously.
The scary part is that people believe some of the shit that gets posted. Common sense is now a superpower.
I think people got hit with an overload of info and stopped bothering to verify its authenticity. And since social media is just an algorithm designed to filter info to you that you like and choose, it's easy to see how that "bad" info would further support people's beliefs and prejudices, rather than provide them with facts that inform or challenge their assumptions.
It's like how Trump would lie so much and so fast during interviews and debates that the moderators couldn't keep up with the fact checking, much less challenge him on most of it. The few times they did challenge him, he literally blamed it on having read it on the internet, end of story. He played right into that inefficiency, and he won because of it.
Disagree. Trump won because half the country is tired of hearing politicians prattle on about bathrooms and body parts, when the average working stiff couldn't give two shits about that stuff, and just wants job security.
Trump isn't going to provide job security.
HTH
Did I say he would? Try harder next time.
So you are saying people who voted for him thinking he would are stupid?
Trump played the game better, and that's definitely why he won. But are we really happy with a political system that rewards spreading propaganda?
John Oliver showed a graph that basically said that 60% (40% conservative and 20% liberal) of the "news" that was shared on Facebook was bullshit. And that a surprising number of Americans now get their news exclusively through social media.
Regardless of the outcome, we should all we wary of this wave of anti-intellectualism (both sides are guilty) that has only made us dumber and more divided as a country.
I know we all like to joke about "x is your source???" but we should start taking that question more seriously.
The scary part is that people believe some of the shit that gets posted. Common sense is now a superpower.
I think people got hit with an overload of info and stopped bothering to verify its authenticity. And since social media is just an algorithm designed to filter info to you that you like and choose, it's easy to see how that "bad" info would further support people's beliefs and prejudices, rather than provide them with facts that inform or challenge their assumptions.
It's like how Trump would lie so much and so fast during interviews and debates that the moderators couldn't keep up with the fact checking, much less challenge him on most of it. The few times they did challenge him, he literally blamed it on having read it on the internet, end of story. He played right into that inefficiency, and he won because of it.
Disagree. Trump won because half the country is tired of hearing politicians prattle on about bathrooms and body parts, when the average working stiff couldn't give two shits about that stuff, and just wants job security.
Trump isn't going to provide job security.
HTH
Did I say he would? Try harder next time.
So you are saying people who voted for him thinking he would are stupid?
Comments
During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
A little more info for you since you are clueless.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420321/democratic-party-racist-history-mona-charen
http://www.truthandaction.org/obama-admin-bible-constitution-declaration-independence-sexist/
Shut the fuck up. Lemming.
Not to mention that the governor who made that comment, that sledog is parroting, apologized. Cause it's irrelevant and meaningless today. It's FS of Democrats to have supported slavery back in the day. Just like today it's FS of Republicans to not support individual freedoms of being gay. Or the racist shit they said about Obama the last 8 years. And it's FS of Democrats right now to be wasting their time to protest Trump. Get the fuck over it.
There's a faction of the Democratic party who hate whites.
What's the fucking difference?
You claim the high ground when more republicans voted for civil rights than dems so who really passed that law?
I am pointing your hypocrisy out to you.
Knock it the fuck off and maybe we can get over it!
HTH
Thank you for the clarification.
HTH