|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 15, 2011 2:37:57 GMT -5
Most importantly, the KKK is a fundamentalist Christian organization (not saying that ALL fundamentalist Christians are like that, but the KKK is consistently this). Back in the heyday, the fundie Christians were democrats. Nowadays, they're republicans.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 15, 2011 4:33:39 GMT -5
The KKK was democratic at its founding as well as when it was found anew (I think). However, sometime after WWII the democrats and Republicans some how changed places. In 1860, politics was split between North and South, not between parties. Before the war, Democrats and Whigs were basically two halves of the one party, in a kind of American transformismo. It was a very corrupt government system, a system basically run from the South- Northerners were not allowed into positions of power and Southern states got more votes than North. Even after the schism of the 40s, the more important difference was geography, not party position. Northern democrats backed the North, while Republicans didn't exist in the South. As a result of the Civil War, the country unified- around a policy of reconstruction and anti-racism. This was a new transformismo and party mattered little- wealth, connections and status were more important. Former confederates (who had all of the three) tried to slightly change the direction of political policy- instead of being anti-racist, slavery would be recreated in a different name. The means chosen to achieve this were basically terrorism. Black Southern politicians were murdered, police and soldiers were attacked and terror spread through African-American society. The South was segregated officially, the North tacitly. As a result to the actions of the terrorism of the Klan, the corrupt government switched directions, and the gains of the Civil War were forsaken. Now, which modern party better represents the Southern aristocracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 15, 2011 7:42:34 GMT -5
The KKK was democratic at its founding as well as when it was found anew (I think). However, sometime after WWII the democrats and Republicans some how changed places. My fave is when people go back and point out the Republicans freed the slaves, as though that means that because Lincoln put forth the Emancipation Prcolamation, the party must forever be the pro-black party. This, along with the KKK argument, amuse me because it means that it doesn't matter what they're doing NOW, things used to be a certain way, and that's all that matters. The Republicans have spent the last 30-40 years being especially harsh on black people, but since they're the Party of Lincoln, they're not rewally the bad guys. They may actively court the KKK, who tend to vote conservative, but they were Democrats at the start, so it's the liberalseseses fault. |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 15, 2011 8:30:57 GMT -5
Guys (and the occasional gal), you can rip into Coulter all you like, but please leave her looks out of it. It's just ... juvenile, ad-hominem, one of these things. What does it say about your own intelligence if the discussion starts about the political statements of a female politician and after two pages most are insulting her exterior? Now this is just mean. Who ever said we're nice? And who ever said I was trying to make a legitimate criticism with my comment? I'm just being insulting toward her because I don't think she warrants a serious response. Pretty much sums up my feelings on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Jul 15, 2011 8:32:20 GMT -5
Guys (and the occasional gal), you can rip into Coulter all you like, but please leave her looks out of it. It's just ... juvenile, ad-hominem, one of these things. What does it say about your own intelligence if the discussion starts about the political statements of a female politician and after two pages most are insulting her exterior? Of course, for A Loner Cunt "wet" is relative. Wet for her is default for most women. Otherwise her twat is dryer than the Sahara. Following coitus Ann Coulter devours the head of her mate. Be careful. Now this is just mean. Your attempts to shame me have failed. Part of Ann Coulter's ugliness is her attitude, which ties directly to this discussion |
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jul 15, 2011 21:50:59 GMT -5
Yes, because it was the progressives who banned the teaching of evolution in schools. Wait...
|
|
