To Anyone who thinks Republicans are Racist

[aggressi0n]

Let's start with the Civil war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis Note: Jefferson Finis Davis (June 3, 1808 – December 6, 1889) was an American politician who served as President of the Confederate States of America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_S...litical_leaders Click on all of them, they were all democrats, some were whig which was what Lincoln was, but they weren't really.

Now lets look at the KKK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klu_Klux_Klan#Creation

Note: The Ku Klux Klan soon spread into nearly every southern state, launching a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders both black and white.

Educated Black People are Republican and know this, but people listen to the rappers who don't know shit k? Stop listening to the retards like Kanye West calling Bush Racist when he had Colin Powell then Condoleeza Rice. Kanye West is just a little bitch ass Liberal complainer, notice how much New Orleans complained, Greensburg whole town was destroyed and did they complain them self? No they didn't the Liberals did, but Greensburg was Republican. Also democrats consider them self the "Party of Thomas Jefferson," why would they be proud of a man who had 187 slaves.

[nesma]

yeah i was just thinking the same

[J]

What the hell are you talking about? Why did you even make this topic?

[Shurt]

....Ok?

[lutz]

Let's start with the Civil war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis Note: Jefferson Finis Davis (June 3, 1808 – December 6, 1889) was an American politician who served as President of the Confederate States of America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_S...litical_leaders Click on all of them, they were all democrats, some were whig which was what Lincoln was, but they weren't really.

Now lets look at the KKK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klu_Klux_Klan#Creation

Note: The Ku Klux Klan soon spread into nearly every southern state, launching a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders both black and white.

Educated Black People are Republican and know this, but people listen to the rappers who don't know shit k? Stop listening to the retards like Kanye West calling Bush Racist when he had Colin Powell then Condoleeza Rice. Kanye West is just a little bitch ass Liberal complainer, notice how much New Orleans complained, Greensburg whole town was destroyed and did they complain them self? No they didn't the Liberals did, but Greensburg was Republican. Also democrats consider them self the "Party of Thomas Jefferson," why would they be proud of a man who had 187 slaves.[/b]

I fear for the future of America.

Holy crap we're screwed.

/nocomment

Your causation is just about the worst it can get.

[aggressi0n]

What the hell are you talking about? Why did you even make this topic?[/b]

Cause the overall stupidity around. People think that Conservatives are the ones who have Confederate Flags and Liberals are the one taking them down, but Clinton is a hypocrite the one Confederate flag(can't remember where) he had it taken down, but where he lives there is a confederate flag at his city hall. People are stupid enough to believe this and I figured I would cure stupidity.

Good Insult Lutz, I fear for the future with all these Libtards, MTV Babies, and Anarchist. Lutz you and your big words never help, you just look like a moron who can't debate so you insult.

[Shurt]

... and I figured I would cure stupidity.[/b]

Haha, not gonna happen.

[aggressi0n]

Haha, not gonna happen.[/b]

Yeah because people chose to believe celebrity endorsements instead of getting the true facts. Best one is Jenna Jameson actually endorsing Hillary Clinton then saying she is a little to conservative, what a stupid blond, conservatives hate Hillary Clinton.

[Shurt]

Yeah because people chose to believe celebrity endorsements instead of getting the true facts. Best one is Jenna Jameson actually endorsing Hillary Clinton then saying she is a little to conservative, what a stupid blond, conservatives hate Hillary Clinton.[/b]

No, not because of celebrity endorsements. You won't cure stupidity unless you lead us ('us' being humans) to extinction.

[aggressi0n]

No, not because of celebrity endorsements. You won't cure stupidity unless you lead us ('us' being humans) to extinction.[/b]

I meant cure them of their stupidity of believing Libtards.

[BabyBash]

omg Bush had Powell and Rice! He loves black people don't you see!?

[camaz0tz]

1) wikipedia doesnt count as a source, any person with half a brain knows that
2) why are all ur sources about things over 100 yaers old? dont have any recent events to support ur claim? have to go off the past for recent accusations?


greensburg vs new orleans ARE U FUCKING KIDDING ME!?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18551775/ ALL FEAR THE 10...T E N deaths!

now lets all ignore the 1k+ deaths of new orleans...

10 vs 1k+....damn thats a tough call, thx for the comparison i think its obvious to see who was hit harder, greensburg right aggre?...rmm wait...

[lutz]

Cause the overall stupidity around. People think that Conservatives are the ones who have Confederate Flags and Liberals are the one taking them down, but Clinton is a hypocrite the one Confederate flag(can't remember where) he had it taken down, but where he lives there is a confederate flag at his city hall. People are stupid enough to believe this and I figured I would cure stupidity.

Good Insult Lutz, I fear for the future with all these Libtards, MTV Babies, and Anarchist. Lutz you and your big words never help, you just look like a moron who can't debate so you insult.[/b]

So you want me to actually make an argument? I felt you didn't deserve one, but hey, you asked for it.

Stupidity is omnipresent; no matter what, you will encounter it everywhere. To generalize in the face of the United States in such as statement is as valid as placing it in the deeds of another; what you say isn't always true.

Liberals, "MTV babies", and anarchists will always exist. What you assume isn't necessarily valid; in fact, it's invalid thanks to reason. Intuitively, we assume cognizance of the human morality and competence, and it is only actively that we can begin to believe the opposite. It is the underestimation of competence, the activity against intuition that forces us to grow weak; by allowing dissipation into equilibrium can we solve this.

At first, your argument seems completely absurd, and a closer observation reaffirms that statement to a new level. Let us analyze your statement, or your qualification that Thomas Jefferson owned 187 un-willing servants, bounded in their chains and essentially stripped of their lives, families, belongings, and freedom. Let us re-analyze our causality in this; perhaps we can assume the same about Brutus and his followers who so indignantly believed in democracy, yet struck down the mighty paragon of such idealism; sure, a dictator, but who can argue against his defense against threats to adverse tyranny, and his expansion of idealism? Upon analyzation of Thomas Jefferson, imposed and forced servitude amongst the oppressed class was unavoidable - what could have happened, is that Thomas Jefferson could have not owned slaves, not owned a plantation and not grown rich - in this case, democracy would have possibly not existed at all; no reasonable man in the Constitutional Convention would allow a poor boy into their secret dealings, possibly a British spy - instead, tyranny could have possibly continued by King George III; what we do not know is impossible to assume. Not only that, a developing nation was weak, fragile; slavery was a heated issue which could not be discussed at a time where basic rights were not even developed - war against Britain hadn't realistically ended until years after Jefferson's presidency (into Madison, which ended the War of 1812). Jumps could not be taken, or would have resulted in huge fallices of democracy, such as the Whiskey Rebellion, and the like - events and antigovernmental actions even larger, and on a greater scale.

Reanalyzation of your facts only would make a common man mad. Lincoln was not a whig. There is no way - NO possible way that Lincoln was a whig. Sure, the Republicans shared some ideas with the whigs, but the amount of which they shared with the Whigs possibly equalled the amount the party shared with the Democrats; no less the difference lie in significance. What we cannot assume, also, is that Lincoln was the leader of the Republicans - he, for sure, was not, as he was very moderate; the Republicans wanted far stricter action against slavery than Lincoln proposed.

One last fallacy in your argument is that you believe the Democratic party of the 1800s and early 1900s is the modern Democratic party, and the same for the Republican party. Your argument could not be further from the truth. Historical analysis proves that the Democratic party of today was the Republican party of the American past (1800-mid 1900s) and the Republican party of today is the Democratic party of the past. Why is this? Look at the conservatives of the past. From 1829 (Jackson's election) to 1859 (Lincoln's election), we had Democratic presidents. Post-Civil War brought abought inward conservatism, and faith in the conservatives of Rutherford B. Hayes lessened, until we grew into the Progressive Era, which could quite possibly be considered more Democratic than Republican (today).

Reconsider your argument, for it is more incorrect than your causation; and believe me, your rationale causes me fear, and I begin to lose faith in humanity.

[Munch]

Sometimes ur sentences seem like they were translated from another language lutz :\ Some make perfect sense but some feel like u just used a thesaurus too many times. Ur points are valid however :/

[lutz]

Sometimes ur sentences seem like they were translated from another language lutz :\ Some make perfect sense but some feel like u just used a thesaurus too many times. Ur points are valid however :/[/b]

Thesaurus? There aren't any big words ._.

I wrote it in like 8 minutes so it was pretty much writing as I was going along.

Yeah, ever since I learned Spanish and the subjunctive phrases, I've been beginning to use subjunctive phrases in English as well; I honestly don't know why, but it's become something like a habit of mine. Instead of saying "I want ____", I'd say in English "I want it so that _____", which would translate into the Spanish subjunctive phrase "Quiero que _____"... Same thing with impersonal phrases, like "Es importante que..." "Es posible que..." - I use a lot of "It is possible that" or "It is important that" - in general I start a lot of sentences with "it". I need to get out of that habit, for it'll get a lot of grammatical errors into some of my writing. It isn't important, nonetheless, for human intuition interprets similarly, on a level void of trenchant falls; hopefully conveyance emerges past its shell of ignorance.