[/QUOTE]
Give me a single example of where you contributed to a discussion that wasnt pointedly a reference to another poster as opposed to the topic.
Candace Owens spanks shook chickens in congress
- Thread starter beelit47
- Start date
Give me a single example of where you contributed to a discussion that wasnt pointedly a reference to another poster as opposed to the topic.
I can’t handle all of this logic. Lol
Anyone headed to the UCF Spring game?
Howabout that team in the Midwest. Is that today as well?
Anyone headed to the UCF Spring game?
Howabout that team in the Midwest. Is that today as well?
She's right. Hitler was not a nationalist. He had imperialistic goals. Nationalists don't invade other countries.
Haha. Now that positive energy and optimism
10-2 is the ceiling according to a lot of “experts.” You’ll finally be bowling again. The schedule is very very favorable. A good start will be key. I would be shocked if you guys don’t win 8 games. However, winning the division should be the goal. That’s going to be tough. Better hope Martinez stays healthy
Probably about right. I can't see any way Neb doesn't go bowling this year and probably a pretty good bowl. Still a ways off from being like Bama or Clemson but definitely going in the right direction.
This was my first exposure to Candace Owens, and (making the necessary allowances of course) I thought she did great. She and Congressman McClintock from California, who was the only Committee member to actually defend free speech, were the best things in the hearing IMO.
Here are some excerpts from the communique that Fight White Genocide sent to the staffers of the House Judiciary Committee:
Quote:
Communique to the Republican Members of the House Judiciary Committee re Upcoming White Nationalist Hearing - Fight White Genocide
by eyeslevel
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” ~Harry S Truman
Why is only pro-white advocacy being singled out for censorship?
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” ~John F Kennedy
[White genocide] is being carried out by means of mass non-white immigration and forced assimilation in ALL and ONLY white countries the goal of which is to force blend ONLY white people out of existence. Anyone who objects to this crime is subject to harassment, intimidation, violent acts and threats of violence, psychological terrorism, job loss, and prison terms.
We DEMAND an open and free discussion of white genocide without threats of attack from screamers, thugs, or thought police.
We DEMAND a worldwide repeal of all laws that make it illegal for white people to speak out for their racial interests.
We are against white supremacy in all its forms, including the notion that white people have a moral obligation to take care of every race but their own.
We unequivocally condemn, denounce and disavow the use of violence to achieve political ends.
Here's a couple of comments made to the above at Fight White Genocide:
Quote:
April 9: House Judiciary to Hold Hearing on Strengthening Anti-Whitism & Streamlining White Genocide
“The hearing will also foster ideas about what social media companies can do to stem white nationalist propaganda…”
Can we have a moment of silence for our lately departed Free Speech?
Quote:
I watched the entire hearing except for the last 10 or 15 minutes. Congressman McClintock from California was the ONLY Committee member that defended free speech.
His words were what almost any Congressman would have said a half century ago, but in today’s hearing his words had the dead sound of an epitaph inscribed on the tombstone of free speech.
He literally wanted to invade and conquer all of Europe, Russia, and northern Africa. And probably North America too if he could have ever conquered those places first.
So by those standards, we might as well call Napoleon a "nationalist" too.
The term “white nationalist” is simply the newest term democrats are using to scare black voters into voting for them. This is what Candice is railing against as they refuse to fix black problems like single motherhood and instead deploy fear tactics. With black unemployment at all time lows, Trump will make gains with black voters. His approval rating among latinos is at 50% too. Pack it in Bernie
Haven't looked at polls since I just don't care about that stuff but my sense through just observing my peer group and surveying the landscape is that Trump is def making inroads with black male voters. The keeping it real approach never goes unseen no matter how it's packaged. Not sure what that will translate in to at the end of the day when it comes to actual votes. Maybe they don't actually go out and vote FOR him but maybe it's enough that they don't get motivated to rock the vote for Bernie. Then of course the push from the other side will be the rise of white nationalism and the reopening of the reparations debate so I guess we'll have to sit back and see.
How is he "keeping it real"? He lies and walks things back constantly.
The African American unemployment rate hit two record lows last year and currently sits at 5.7%. Statistically speaking, the economic picture for African Americans has never been better in this country.
Not to say it's where it should be, but it's the best that it's been. That has to carry weight, especially when the other side is currently led by 4 older white people who are all campaigning falsely on how terrible things are economically.
Do historians even say there was a "Southern Switch"? The parties certainly evolved, as political parties do over time, but when I have heard Owens talk about this she seems to be arguing a point that no one is really making.
I've never heard the term Southern Switch but I've certainly heard it described that the parties essentially flip flopped.
People aren't fact checking and that includes his base. There's a ZFG attitude that people obviously like.
You had a faction of the Democratic party that didn't like civil rights and eventually became Republicans, the Strom Thurmond's of the world, but there wasn't really a flip flop. The Kennedy's weren't lifelong Republicans who suddenly decided to become Democrats for example, they were always Democrats. Owens (and others) are essentially trying to apply an argument to people, who aren't really making that argument. She either doesn't know what she is talking about, or she does know what she is talking about, but assumes her audience doesn't.
Its just a political thing that they use to discourage pragmatism and encourage party politics. Republicans in general were not and still arent racists. There was a time that democrats were. They can't admit the failings of the party in the past so they have to ascribe those faults to someone else just to keep the narrative going that a boogeyman exists. That isn't an attack on any individual, its an attack on the structure that the parties feel they need to have. Dems require their members to be pretty monolithic, Republicans in theory accept some level of diversity. It's why a guy like Rand Paul can get elected as a republican and recieve consideration when he really is a libertarian whereas the Democrats in Washington are basically carbon copies. Joe Lieberman and Jim Webb are good examples of that.
90% of African American voters voted for Democrats in the mid terms just a few months ago. There is no indication at this point that Trump is going to improve a great deal with African American voters.
This is complete non sense. The Democratic party is at this very moment having conflicts within the party about which direction the party is headed where as Republicans bend over backwards to defend Trump.
lol no they aren't. The leadership is providing as much cover as possible to the new radical, left wing voices in the party. Most every candidate is moving as far left as possible to align with that fringe of the party. It's almost a sin to come out as an unapologetic capitalist in the 2019 DNC.
The party is becoming more monolithic by the day thanks for the fringe left wing ruling the narrative.
https://nypost.com/2019/04/16/pelosi-downplays-her-and-ocasio-cortezs-election-victories/
Nancy Pelosi just yesterday downplayed AOC and the "left wing narrative" . If you really think the Dem party is monolithic then with all due respect, you know nothing about the policies or positions. There were Dems who wanted Pelosi out as speaker, there are Dems for and against the Green New Deal, Democratic socialism etc etc. There is hardly a monolithic view of what the modern Democratic views and positions are.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...term-vote-divisions-by-race-gender-education/
Blacks voted overwhelmingly (90%) for the Democratic candidate, including comparable shares of black men (88%) and black women (92%).
I can admit that democrats, when they were the conservative party of small government, were racist assholes. It seems that the ideology of a party is more important than the name is since the conservative party of small government is still full of racist assholes like Steve King.
As a recent college graduate, it is still taught in school that the parties switched.
Just the whole idea of making a big deal over which team controls House/Senate shows both sides are guilty. Like everything else... We can fight behind closed doors but need to show a unified front nonsense.
It’s not new. It’s a theory that, depending upon your confirmation bias, is either entirely true or totally debunked. It does let the Democrats off the hook entirely for racists in their own party, but there were racists and slaveowners in both parties so it’s not nearly as clear as one side is good and the other is evil.
First off I am not aware that they do. Second off, when a bill comes up for a vote it has typically gone through a process of being shaped so everyone (or most) will vote for it. The discussions, compromises, etc are done before the bill is actually called for a vote.
But it doesn't make any sense. If there was a switch, then does that mean the Kennedy's were previously Republicans? If FDR had lived would he have suddenly become a Republican? What it was, was that some people left the Democratic party over the civil rights issues, that is it. I have never heard people argue that the parties just collectively switched.
I don't know what to take from this but it does appear Trump approval from black voters has leveled off over the last year and even improved over the last 6 months. How that compares with other groups I'll let you decide. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-approval-rating-polls/
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/trump-approval-rating-polls/
Yes, it is nothing more than a
This pretty much sums it up. Democrats have been actively trying to bury their racist history so they can continue to control black voters
Anybody who pass eighth grade American History should know all about beelit47's "inconvenient truth" clip.
I'm wondering if we'll get the same 'expose'' when it comes to explaining the political shift that took place in the South following the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
Where did all those post-George Wallace voters go?
I'm wondering if we'll get the same 'expose'' when it comes to explaining the political shift that took place in the South following the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
Where did all those post-George Wallace voters go?
That was 50+ years ago. The makeup of most of the country, including the south, has changed quite a bit. At some point we are going to have to acknowledge the progress we’ve made and stop constantly prying at the divisions.
Last edited:
Excuse me for "prying at divisions" for adding 'the rest of the story' to beelit47's clip about how those evil Democrats are this country's real racists.
Why would racist voters join the party that passed the civil rights act?
Similar threads
