Democrats love masks

:0)

Seal of Approval - 4z05qo.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!

Well, liberals didn’t start the KKK. Democrats did.

Democrats are modern liberals. Unless you're using the term liberal in the classical use of the term like our founder were. Then I would agree with you.

Modern democrats are liberal. KKK founders were conservatives. KKK founders were democrats. Therefore, KKK founding democrats were conservatives.

That KKK Founders were conservative is nothing but an empty claim - not an argument to support one. The liberal Democrats that started the KKK are the same liberal Democrats of today, but that depends on how you're using the term liberal. Democrats - like LBJ - learned they could better profit from minorities by keeping them poor and voting for handouts in inner cities rather than picking cotton on plantations.

Your arguments are tired. The founding of the KKK or more accurately, refounding in 1915, was inspired by writings of the daughter's of the Confederacy. They sold pamphlets glorifying the almost defunct KKK to fund building Confederate monuments. Who defends these monuments now?

The small government, states rights, Confederate flag flying, Democratic party is most similar to todays _____ party.

When Strom Thurmond, the guy who led the filibuster against the civil rights act left the Democratic party and ran as a Republican, was he rejected? Did he lose?

Your "minorities don't know what's good for them" argument sounds a lot like the slavery justification that said we were just overseeing the development of the slaves and would let them go on that happy day when they were developed enough to do it themselves.

What definition of liberal and conservative are you going by? Please paste and don't just say "tHe cLaSsIcAl oNe"

How can my arguments be tired when I haven't offered any arguments? You haven't offered anything that needs to be counterargued - just empty claims.

The monuments being defended in modern times are not exclusively civil rights monuments, but all historical monuments. Only barbarians tear down their history. You offered a faulty comparison fallacy while omitting relevant factors.

You don't know what you're talking about. The KKK was inspired by blacks being afforded the right to vote as a result of the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments - which Democrats opposed. Democrats formed the KKK as a terrorist organization to keep blacks from voting. Republicans then had to escort them to the polls as a result.

Very good. You named a single Democrat who switched sides. This is typically the name that comes up during the " Party Switch" claim. If the parties truly did " Switch sides" You should be able to produce dozens of such examples. Where are they?

What " minorities don't know what's good for them " argument? Do you have a mouse in your pocket or are you making faulty deductions in the form of strawmen arguments?

Bonus question in regards to this topic. If Democrats truly are the party of "Civil rights" and the parties "Switched sides " so that blacks could eventually start voting for the party looking out for their best interest. Tell me, why did the shift of blacks voting for Democrats occur during the 30s and 40s under FDR's new deal benefits to blacks. And not during the 60's during civil rights - when their friends the Democrats supposedly set them free from bondage?

When I use the term " liberal " I am using it in the modern sense of denoting a "progressives" political position. Not classical liberals like our founders. You misunderstood my use of the term classical. You took it as meaning " typical" example. Showing your lack of historical knowledge of political parties and their leanings..

Only barbarians Tear down - monuments on public lands are maintained with taxpayer dollars depicting traitors. Tearing down history - no tearing down monuments meant to push the lost cause narrative. Some monuments probably weren't made with that in mind and may authentically be about remembering the fallen, not glorifying what the south tried to accomplish. If that's so, I hope those monuments are judged individually. Fun fact: the daughter's of the cofederacy also built a monument to the KKK.

There have been 3 iterations of the KKK. You refer to the first. It was all but destroyed by federal forces. The second was a bit more antisemetic and anti Catholic than the first. The current KKK was founded I'm the 50s. The second was inspired by the unified daughter's of the Confederacy.

Why did the switch happen in the 30s/40s? You keep assuming that black people were tricked it lured. The split between northern and southern democrats got aggravated here. In the north and west blacks began to vote Democratic based on policies. Southern democrats began to be unreliable when it came to voting for presidential candidates, though they still voted for their local Dixiecrats. The switch finally occurred when republicans started courting those Dixiecrat voters.

Sanger? What about her? Eugenics is bad. That doesn't change the fact that Planned Parenthood isn't sterilizing women or running breeding programs.

Take a guess as which race has the highest percentage of aborted babies.

And yet the birth rate is pretty much the same across demographics. If abortion is a plan to eliminate a race, it is the worst plan in the history of mankind.

It was her plan. It succeeded in that blacks are destroying their babies at an alarming rate. She was a racist who thought she could dwindle the black population over time through abortion.

Women and the new race - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8660
She mentions blacks not at all (not surprising considering when it was written) and negros twice.
Weeding once - "Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."

Chapter III - "The materials of the new race" sounds like it might be what you wanted. It starts out pretty bad. She asks if the foreigners coming here are actually making us better. At first it sounds like no - she talks about how many come over illiterate, in poverty, etc. But then she talks about the spirit that brings them here.

She talks about creating 'an American race' but I don't see where she excluded anyone except based on merit. The last sentence of the chapter

"We shall see that it will save the precious metals of racial culture, fused into an amalgam of physical perfection, mental strength and spiritual progress. Such an American race, containing the best of all racial elements, could give to the world a vision and a leadership beyond our present imagination."

So, please point me to where she says what you implied.

Source? Non-crazy person source if you have it, but I can evaluate for myself.

How about....Margaret Sanger herself?

"Birth Control is not contraception indiscriminately and thoughtlessly practiced. It means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."

I suggest you read her book "Women and the New Race." There's a whole chapter in there where she explains her goal of "getting rid of the weeds (blacks)."

Eugenics - it makes sense on the surface, right? You breed the race for good traits. If someone has 'defects' they don't breed and we become stronger. Its like evolution, or breeding livestock. It all sounds like a great idea...until you think about it. Because then you either have to have a population that is totally onboard with asking permission to breed or you have to enforce it. Neither solution sounds like a fun society to live in.

Now the Sanger quote, I don't think it was racist. I think racial elements means the elements of each race. Like breeding dogs. "On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."

"keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class."

You also need to remember what it was like before birth control. Its easy for us to forget. Some families had more children than they could take care of. If you literally cannot feed your family you might make some very poor decisions. Accidental pregnancies were pretty much only avoidable by abstinence, and that ain't happening. So, while her belief in birth control was based on Eugenics, people are generally more complex than one idea.

"Usually this desire [for family limitation] has been laid to economic pressure... It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion."

"It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide."

Even non-race based eugenics is scary though. Who decides what is or isn't merit? I'm actually reminded of a Star Trek: TNG episode where Geordi is talking to a Romulan and tells him he was born blind. His response was to say that this was why Humans were weak. "And your parents let you live? You waste time and resources on defective children."

Good Lord, you ramble on about Margaret Sanger as if any of her thoughts had merit.

No, I ramble on like your black genocide conspiracy theory doesn't hold up.

Oh, it's not my conspiracy theory. It's Sanger's herself.

With regards to what was literally called "The Negro Project," which specifically sought to underwrite black pastors to peddle her vision:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

The project sought to provide birth control. That's it. Her while schtick was allowing families to control the number of kids they had so that each child had the resources to thrive.

If I'm wrong, show me.

I already did.

You are blinded by revisionist history crafted by admirers of progressivism no matter the moral cost.

I'm not blinded, i'm skeptical. Its funny how the professional skeptics seem to take offense to anyone being skeptical of them. Irony is king.

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Does she mean that there is a plan or that she doesn't want rumors to start? I could read it either way. Apparently those who have read the correspondence it came from seem to think it was concerned with rumors, not an actual plan when read in context. I didn't see the actual correspondence anywhere and am not going to look at this point. However, MLK seemed to think her efforts were "to preserve human life under humane conditions".

I'm not going to change your mind, and if there was sufficient evidence to make your point, I imagine one or both of us would have stumbled across it. The thing is, even if that was her intent, it doesn't change much. Henry Ford was an anti-Semite who's writings were sited as inspiration by the Nazi party. I doubt that has much influence on Ford Motors today. I imagine I could find some dirt on any number of surgeons who pioneered life changing surgeries. Even were that the original plan of planned parenthood, I see no way for you to link a service offered equally to all races to that plan.

It's not taken out of context. That's why she -in the same writing, no less- talks about the need to bankroll black pastors and other community activists to promote her goals.

Revise it all you like, the truth remains, and it is ugly.

Is a choice. Nobody is forced to get an abortion (unless you count the pressures of lack of healthcare or a livable wage as force).

That is just a poor excuse for killing your unborn child.

I hope nobody gets an abortion, but if a kid was on life support, it would be the parents choice about ending care. If there was an objection to a life saving surgery, I'm pretty sure the parents decide. I leave the decision between the expectant mother and doctor. I support programs that I hope will lower the numbers. I think any attempt to stop abortion without addressing the reason a woman finds that option to be the preferred choice is probably going to end poorly.

The root cause is a choice too.

I find 'personal responsibility' only works at the individual level. If lack of personal responsibility is the cause, you wouldn't expect it to make a difference statistically since, all things being equal, the same number of individuals should be making poor choices among other races. When you start to see statistical patterns such as more of one race incarcerated or living in poverty, you either have to conclude that more of that race is inferior (hard no for me), or that there are societal factors.

I'm not defending Sanger, because I don't know enough about her one way or the other, but she reportedly didn't allow any discrimination among her staff. Also, according to her autobiography, she did speak before the KKK, but only did it because she was willing to speak in front of anyone who would listen. She described the audience of that speech as all half-wits.

Now maybe that is BS and public relations after the fact. I'm actually not sure why it matters.

and i see some in the muppet class are trotting out the classics.confusing liberal and conservative.
you can be a conservative democrat,and a liberal republican.
both in our f**ked up two party duopoly have shifted ideologies over their existence.

because politics is about POWER,not your wittle fee-fees.

stop with the revisionist history you cock juggling thunder c**ts.

stream appears to have a muppet infestation,but not as many nazis as last year.

you were SUPPOSED to keep the stream clear homie!
very disappointed.

i tease.
how you be my friend?
hope you are doing well during these...interesting times.

Honestly, I've been working a lot lately and there has been an infestation of Middle-schoolers on the site, and adults who think like them (see current thread). And then there are the sensitive types who can't take a single comment that questions their narrative (right, left, and anything in between). But...I'm a dick, and it is my sworn duty to protect pussies from assholes and f**k em both when I get a chance cuz they both need it, and each one thinks it's the other. Haven't seen Vag for a while, guess he doesn't like making kids cry as much as I do. lol

i know he had severe health issues.

You're a winner among the special ed.

hey,aren't you that twat waffle that disables comments?

why you commenting at me?

f**k outta here with that pansy shit.
i only talk to adults.

"hey,aren't you that twat waffle that disables comments?"

This isn't my meme. And crap here is exactly why I disable my comments. You don't like it, feel free to not respond back.

"why you commenting at me?"

Because I feel like it.

"f**k outta here with that pansy shit.
i only talk to adults."

So you think you're the adult? I'm not the one using personal insults to "debate" a political topic like you are.

oh jesus christ,grow some balls will ya?

of course you can comment at me,i was giving ya shit for disabling YOUR comments on YOUR thread.

and this ain't a debate,and you haven't brought up a topic.
f**k me..put your big boy pants on will ya?

/walks away mumbling
f**king responding in bullet form..f**k me..this world is doomed..

"oh jesus christ,grow some balls will ya?"

This is a political stream, in which the rules clearly state to be respectful. So far, in this brief encounter you have failed on that front. I am guilty of doing exactly what you are doing now and I am getting tired of doing it. I am not a p*ssy. If I were I would have not only flagged your comments, but also would have reported you.

"and this ain't a debate,and you haven't brought up a topic.
f**k me..put your big boy pants on will ya?"

You're the one who seems a bit rattled. I merely responded to your comment and you're going off the handle, throwing profanities. Profanities don't hurt my feelings. I am trying to get away from childish interactions within my own memes and was hoping for a logical and reasonable conversation here, but I suppose that isn't possible. My original response was due to the fact I knew that "cock juggling thunder c**t" line was from Ryan Reynold's character in the third Blade movie. you seem pissed off for some reason. Was it the "you're a winner among the special ed" comment?

I now know to steer clear of you if I want to have a logical discussion from here on out. Duly noted.

i just don't respect those who disable comments.

but you actually cleared that up,and explained why.
and ya know what?
that's fair.

thanks for clarifying.

*note* i give every user who disable comments shit.not just you homie.