Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So your best thinking is that there is a party, people or affiliation that has zero racist tendencies and that there is not such a thing as bad and worse?
Using your logic and assuming from your screen name that you are Latino, if I were to employ similar selective logic, your stance on illegal immigration could be twisted to portray you as a traitor to your own kind. That would be disingenuous, but were I a moron, I might suggest it.
Really? Explain yourself. Bear in mind, I am now giving you rope.
Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow. Do you not know history?
Let me ask you this: what political party did Alabama Governor George Wallace belong to when he literally student in front of the door to stop black students from entering school?
Someone doesn't know history. You are trying to connect liberals with the party of the South during the Civil War. The South during the Civil War (and still today) was not the "liberal" side. It matters not what they called themselves at that time. While Lincoln was the leader of the party that called itself "Republicans" at that time. It was the party of the North and far more liberal than the party of the South.
And George Wallace was considered a "Democrat" and was a serious racist. Yet, the Republicans in Alabama at that time were even worse. So, George Wallace has no connection to the present day party that is comprised of "liberals".
You need to not just know facts from history that suit you. You need to understand how those "facts" fit into the context of history and events.
No one but a fool would argue that Southern conservatives (as a whole) marched and demonstrated against segregation of Jim Crow.
The trick to not being publicly humiliated is to follow the facts wherever they lead, even if it doesn't suit your desired opinion.
I think women are generally more compassionate and nurturing towards other people than men. A lot of women get all teary eyed when they hear about some third world refugees and whatever it is they supposedly went through. A woman's mothering instincts kick in, sometimes through personal action like volunteering, and sometimes in the form of voting or supporting certain legislation. Me on the other hand, a man, I give out compassion very sparingly(and never to Islam!)
Also, this is more the case in Europe where Islam is a further along disease than in America, but women are more likely to have stockholm syndrome than men. Its an evolutionary survival mechanism for women to obey and tolerate and in some cases become fond of an aggressive captor or foreign invader, unlike men whose instinct is to kill the invader. Europe is treating Islam like a woman would, and its making a lot of men very frustrated and angry that they can seemingly do nothing about it.
Generalizations obviously, many awesome women aren't like the above, but just my 2 cents.
Someone doesn't know history. You are trying to connect liberals with the party of the South during the Civil War. The South during the Civil War (and still today) was not the "liberal" side. It matters not what they called themselves at that time. While Lincoln was the leader of the party that called itself "Republicans" at that time. It was the party of the North and far more liberal than the party of the South.
And George Wallace was considered a "Democrat" and was a serious racist. Yet, the Republicans in Alabama at that time were even worse. So, George Wallace has no connection to the present day party that is comprised of "liberals".
You need to not just know facts from history that suit you. You need to understand how those "facts" fit into the context of history and events.
No one but a fool would argue that Southern conservatives (as a whole) marched and demonstrated against segregation of Jim Crow.
The trick to not being publicly humiliated is to follow the facts wherever they lead, even if it doesn't suit your desired opinion.
Sorry if it upsets you that the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow, but that is just a fact.
Sorry if it upsets you that the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow, but that is just a fact.
What makes you think "it upsets me"? I enjoy a lively debate. Particularly when I win! LOL
Yes, the party, made up of conservatives, that called themselves "Democrats" during the Civil Warwere indeed the party of slavery at that time. Now they go by the name "Republicans". You are correct in that sense. Glad we agree.
What makes you think "it upsets me"? I enjoy a lively debate. Particularly when I win! LOL
Yes, the party, made up of conservatives, that called themselves "Democrats" during the Civil Warwere indeed the party of slavery at that time. Now they go by the name "Republicans". You are correct in that sense. Glad we agree.
Of course you went with the mythical party swap Democrats always use to cope with how their party was the party of racism.
Sorry, but no matter how upsetting it is to you, the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow. That is just a FACT. One that you just can't cope with.
Because Islamic men are masculine and western men are becoming more feminized with each passing generation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
