pride month is unneeded

Agreed, let's make it the whole year.

No

Yes!

WHAT! What will happen to all the assless chap makers?

Glad the coffee was gone LMDO

All chaps are made that way. You're supposed to wear pants.

So all those gays are stupid and not exhibitionists? Huh.

I don't think I said anything like that.

John Wayne wore the same things and never showed his.

You all do know what they say comes before the fall right?

they say august comes before the fall

But then companies can't merchandise rainbow designs as well!
All these "months" are unneeded. All it means is MORE politics shoved down my throat while I'm trying to relax and find entertainment.

they should do a 9/11 commemoration month in september, a holocaust commemoration in may, and an independence month in july. oppose any of those and you're anti-american/anti-semitic

I'm not against those as long as we don't have to have it all mentioned everywhere at every time. I get the idea of respect, and I think those should be prioritized before black history month, asian history month, or pride month

"and I think those should be prioritized before black history month, asian history month, or pride month"

even my suggestion for a holocaust month? didn't that take place in europe, while black history month is largely focused on black american history?

The only thing about a Holocaust month is that we shouldn't obsess over the saddest events in history. We should remember them so they don't happen again, but if we really had a month for every time millions of ppl get killed, we'd have a year full of absolute depression. There'd have to be a month for the Khmer rouge, Mao's takeover of China and his death toll of 65M, Stalin and Lenin's death tolls, a Hugo Chavez month, etc. Heck, we might need to throw in Assyrian torture month.

Black history month is more legit than pride month. I don't like it (for many reasons) but pride month is absolutely offensive, and I'm now hearing more and more gay ppl that are becoming offended by it.

"I'm now hearing more and more gay ppl that are becoming offended by it."

where? it's obnoxious at times, sure. however, i've never heard anyone say they're sick of pride month outside of imgflip, however.

we need an America history month more than pride month

An entire month dedicated to learning about the horrors of slavery and colonialism sounds like a great idea.

That may be part of it but why is that your focus?

Bc that's all a leftist knows about American history. They're not taught the horrors of slavery and overrunning of countries done by Marxist leaders like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, though

"horrors of slavery"

...and the bloody Civil War we fought to end it.

"colonialism"

as if the USA was the only nation to do that! LOL! Nearly every other nation was colonialist or imperialist at some point, including the Native Americans.

Yes what he said

The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union, it wasn’t until Lincoln realized the diplomatic benefits abolishing slavery would have with Great Britain that he supported abolition.

The U.S. also was pressured to make steps toward racial equality and integration because of propaganda by the Soviet Union.

Really it seems you are going to any length to disqualify Lincoln's great achievement. I'm not surprised; he was a Republican, after all. But that is inaccurate. Yes, it did have diplomatic benefits with GB, but the Republican Party itself was founded with the intention of stopping the expansion of slavery into the westward territories, with the aim of abolishing it altogether. At the outset of the war, Lincoln was more moderate, but as the conflict progressed, his views, as well as the views of the Republican Party in general, became more and more abolitionist, something that eventually culminated in the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment. Sadly, Lincoln was assassinated by a Democrat before he got to see the passage of the latter.

LOL! Are you serious? Maybe a FEW people did, but the WHOLE country? No. Besides, as I have said before, the Republican Party was for those goals before the USSR even existed.EVERY black in to Congress before 1934, all 23 of them, were REPUBLICANS. The 19th Amendment was passed by a REPUBLICAN controlled Congress.

Also, its not like the USSR was so equal, either. As Winston Churchill once said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

I’m well aware of the roots of the Republican Party, and yes ultimately Lincoln’s views on slavery did shift, but Lincoln was always more concerned with preserving the Union than anything else.

You keep talking about the very old Republican Party, when it was less conservative. The Party today is nothing like it was before the Civil Rights era. The GOP used to fight for civil rights then gradually erased them from its platform. The Democrats took on that fight. The GOP resisted integrated busing, affirmative action, challenges to racial policing and sentencing, hell, Reagan even argued that discrimination did not exist during his campaign in 1980. They became the party of southern strategy and state’s rights.

And that disqualifies the Emancipation Proclamation how? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

LOL... here comes the "party switch" myth! No, actually it didn't. The Democrats took that on in name only to gain more votes. Lyndon Johnson voted against every major civil rights bill during his time as a Senator. He only was for the CRA of '64 since he realized its political potential. The Republicans never erased equality from their platform. They were, are, and always have been the purveyora of the idea "all men are created equal". The Democrats, however, have always been the "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" party. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Democrats asserted the dominance of whites and instituted Jim Crow laws. Now, they purvey CRT in order to paint a picture of oppression. They implement black only housing in universities, and continue to push affirmative action, even though it is highly unnecessary and may actually hurt minorities. The GOP's opposition to affirmative action does not mean they are racist- quite the contrary; we want people to be judged based on their qualifications and personalities (content of their character) and not given freebies and extra opportunities because of their race (not the color of their skin).

Keyword: during his campaign. Every candidate lies during election season. Discrimination DOES exist, it's just not the widespread bogeyman Democrats use to whip up racial sensitivities to garner votes.

LMAO!! the "southern strategy"? That BS?

The SS is a lie. Republicans were competitive in the South as early as 1928, then Herbert Hoover won 47% of the South's popular vote. Eisenhower won 3 Southern states in 1952, and picked up 3 more in '56, even AFTER supporting Brown vs. Board of Education. Republicans didn't do any pandering to racists. Democrats, however, did LOADS of pandering, first to racists, then to minorities. It's also worth noting that of the 21 Democrat Senators who opposed CRA of '64, one- yes, ONE- became a Republican. On average, those 20 seats didn't turn GOP until 25 years later. Richard Nixon LOST the deep south in 1968, and Democrat Jimmy Carter swept the region in 1976. And in regards to the House, it took Republicans until 1994 to gain a majority of Southern house seats. 1994- that's thirty years after the Civil Rights act.

Eisenhower reported said of Chief Justice Warren, “the biggest damfool mistake I ever made.” Eisenhower had to be pressured by Democrats and the Soviets to intervene in Little Rock and send the National Guard to protect them.

"Democrats and Soviets"

LOL Arkansas was a deep BLUE state... but ya know, we don't talk about that...

It’s blatantly obvious that you got your party switch “facts” from a certain PragerU video.

Regardless of LBJ’s record before the presidency, he inherited the rest of JFK’s first term and wanted to affirm the civil rights legislation Kennedy had started.

It is true that the language of “civil rights” gradually disappeared from the Republican Party platform:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1960

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1964

You are correct that historically Democrats have been responsible for sabotaging reconstruction, pushing for Jim Crow legislation and terrorizing and intimidating blacks with groups like the KKK. We all know this. They don’t push for CRT, and honestly I don’t think even Biden comprehends the institutional racism at play when it comes to our justice system and the police.

Affirmative action is supposed to make up for past discrimination, not select according to the makeup of the overall population. It is about providing opportunities, not guaranteeing outcomes.

I’m pretty sure there are documents from the Nixon administration laying out southern strategy, and the GOP has apologized twice to the NAACP for using SS and acknowledged it is real. You folks always downplay Thurmond’s move to the GOP — but he was the BIGGEST SEGREGATIONIST IN THE SENATE. It is so rare for politicians on a national scale to switch party, so for him to join the GOP, and be embraced by Barry Goldwater speaks volumes. Not all Democrats immediately shifted to the GOP — but the conservative Dixiecrats did and ran for office as Republicans after the realignment.

Let’s reiterate what GOP strategist Lee Atwater said in 1981: “You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****, n*****, n*****." By 1968 you can't say "n*****"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

Guilty as charged! But that does't prove anything, as they are still facts.

FOR POLITICAL POWER. He never actually cared about blacks. He described the CRA of '64 as "the n****r bill". He said of his decision to nominate Thurgood Marshall for the Supreme Court, "when I appoint a n****r to the bench, I want everybody to know he's a n****r."

It disappeared because it was no longer necessary. It would be like discussing slavery- kind of a settled issue already. It might also be that it just became associated with the Party and it was kind of redundant to keep campaigning on it since everybody already knew that was a Republican position. Whatever the case, it doesn't really prove that Republicans were racist, or became more racist with time. It only proves that they didn't deem it necessary to include.

While we're on the subject of JFK... you mean the same JFK who was a lifelong member of the NRA, who opposed unrestricted abortion, and wanted to cut taxes? THAT John F. Kennedy?

" They don’t push for CRT, and honestly I don’t think even Biden comprehends the institutional racism at play when it comes to our justice system and the police."

Contradicting yourself...

Actually it kinda is. Affirmative Action is supposed to "diversify" organizations, with little regard to skill. Universities, especially, are guilty of this. They lower minimum acceptable SAT scores for minorities, so they would be let in. If a white (or now Asian) who got the same score as a black person who was accepted, they'd be denied. I don't know about you but that sounds like racism to me.

https://www.newsweek.com/aoc-suggests-crt-opponents-accepting-racism-gop-bills-against-it-pile-1660874

Oh you're pretty sure? Anyway, what those documents likely detail (if they even exist) is that he wanted to try to win some competitive southern states, not that he was trying to be out-of-his-way appealing to Klansmen.

"of the 21 Democrat Senators who opposed CRA of '64, one- yes, ONE- became a Republican. On average, those 20 seats didn't turn GOP until 25 years later."
Strom Thurmond might have switched. But the rule hasn't changed. Most Dems were reelected as Dems or replaced by other Dems.

LBJ most likely did say those things because we do know that he used the N-word in private. Doesn’t change the fact that he accomplished significant racial progress in his time in office.

JFK described himself as a liberal. He’s the one who coined the term “affirmative action”, supported immigration, proponent of expanding Social Security, voting rights and feminism. The Americans for Democratic Action rated him typically at more than 90% liberal in those days.

The switch didn’t immediately take hold in the US Senate. It started in state legislatures and the US House, and in some governorships. Southern Republicans were indistinguishable from southern Democrats, and helped to fight integration and civil rights and urged Eisenhower to pull out of Little Rock. Retiring Dems in some cases urged their successors to run as Republicans, and they won. People don’t realize both parties had their share of conservatives and liberals in them. People also think historically the KKK was only associated with the Democratic Party, but its second wave favored the GOP in some places, especially Illinois and Indiana.

See how the realignment manifested in the South:
https://twitter.com/kevinmkruse/status/993475107992559616?s=21&t=USyUW9sbBsVQ55jOC44Spg

You are correct. Many people did use that word. But his record, along with his private attitude towards the bill show that it was a political power decision.

LEGAL immigration...

Let's also not forget that the South itself has changed. Southerners aren't the racists that defined the region in earlier eras. Voters are happy to elect black conservatives, like Tim Scott or Bryan Donalds, rather than a white liberal.

Oh look- you found one Republican racist. I found a Democrat one- "Robert Parker, Johnson's sometime chauffer, described in his memoir Capitol Hill in Black and White a moment when Johnson asked Parker whether he'd prefer to be referred to by his name rather than "boy," "ni**er" or "chief." When Parker said he would, Johnson grew angry and said, "As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your go***mn name. So no matter what you are called, ni**er, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a go***mn piece of furniture.' "

That excerpt is from MSNBC, by the way.

If the SS is so effective and pervasive, please explain to me the numerous Democratic Victories in Southern States since 1968...

Hey. If you’re going to quote PragerU word for word, use quotation marks.

" "

there... :)

it's sad that gays are so full of themselves that they think they are entitled to more time than those that gave the ultimate sacrifice.

"gave the ultimate sacrifice"

stonewall?

It’s sad that you have to shit on gay struggle and progress just because there’s only a day set aside for fallen veterans. There’s only one labor day yet working class history is the history of this nation. We aren’t complaining.

Not all are, it’s just the loud ones. The majority don’t really care and are casual about being LGBTQ

Is there something specific we are supposed to do during those months that have been designated to all of the liberal special interest groups? I'm not changing my sexual preference for a month or any period of time.

lel no one is demanding that you do

Then what's the point of any of these months that we are supposed to "celebrate" a small handful of groups? There are only 12 months. That leaves a whole lot of people out who don't get a special month set aside for them.

This [fill-in-the-blank] National History Month is just nonsense and is actually racist because of all of the people it leaves out. History is color blind. It is just the facts of what happened. I do not care if liberals get their panties twisted in knots because a white guy invented something. I do not care if some Aryan brotherhood white supremacists gets his panties in knots because a black guy or a jew invented something. It is just history and the external features or behaviors of the person in history who did something significant should not be an issue.

Did George Washington Carver's skin color have anything to do with the peanut butter he invented? Could an Asian woman been equally motivated to make something new out of peanuts? Could a white Christian male (the most hated people in America) have invented peanut butter? People of all races could have done it. But race is not what got the peanut butter invented. It was the enginuity of 1 specific person. Celebrate that person for his/her contribution to society. Leave their race, gender, ethnicity out of history

"that we are supposed to "celebrate" a small handful of groups"

supposed to? i'm not even celebrating. june is already one of my least favorite months of the year (for various personal reasons). like i said, no one is demanding that you do.

"Could a white Christian male (the most hated people in America)"

lmfao oh you wish; victim complex. let me know when there's a bill targeted at them.

Not a victim, just an observation. Liberal victims run to the federal government with all of their cry baby problems. I'm not trying to make anyone change for me and the government is the last place any of us would turn to.

"just an observation"

lol. i ran into some "observer" last week (whose mental state has been malformed). thing is, all these """"""observations"""""" tend to be biased and can't be proved.

What makes you think it can't be proved? Do you believe that conservatives are fascists? Are they nazis? If you answer yes to that question, then you yourself are part of that bigotry against the right.

Let me also ask, do you think Christians are trying to "force their religion down your throat" as so many non-religious claims? Do you think Christianity is one of the things wrong with this country? Do you believe they are violent? If you do, then you are part of that bigotry also.

"What makes you think it can't be proved?"

got any proof that Christian White Males are the most hated people in America that is anything other than a pure observation? did any surveys to find out how many people actually hate CWM?

"Do you believe that conservatives are fascists? Are they nazis?"

no lol

"If you answer yes to that question, then you yourself are part of that bigotry against the right."

good thing i answered no :)

"Do you think Christianity is one of the things wrong with this country? Do you believe they are violent?"

not necessarily. i've met many non-violent christians, so it'd be outlandish of me to think so.

"got any proof that Christian White Males are the most hated people in America that is anything other than a pure observation? did any surveys to find out how many people actually hate CWM?"

Really?? You must not be paying any attention. The left has already accused all whites of being white supremacists. They say we are born racists. That is such complete and utter crap.

There are those on the left who have come up with this idea called intersectionality. Intersectionality is the idea that certain people get victimhood points based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Of course they don't call it victimhood points (as far as I know). If you are a heterosexual white female you get one victim point. If you are a lesbian white female you get 2 points. If you are a lesbian non-white female you get 3 points. If you are a lesbian transgender non-white female you get 4 points.

The converse is if you are a heterosexual white male, you get zero points and if you are Christian you get -1 point because you are the oppressor.

I am not making this stuff up. This is all coming from liberals, it is their idea.

"'Do you believe that conservatives are fascists? Are they nazis?'

no lol"

Do you think that the ideology of the Republicans and/or conservatives is rooted in fascism or Nazism?

There are plenty of liberals on ImgFlip who have called me and others fascists and/or Nazis all the time and they means all of the people on the right.

"not necessarily. i've met many non-violent christians, so it'd be outlandish of me to think so"

Great. I am glad you think that way. Some Christians are violent and some are rude. It is not the teachings of Jesus that make them that way, it is the fact that there are always going to be violent and rude people in any cross section of people. Just as there will be about the same percentage of violent and rude people who are atheists.

I'll probably get put in ImgFlip jail for what I am about to say but facts are facts, even if the ImgFlip mods don't like it. The Quran commands in several passages that Muslims are to kill the unbeliever. One passage says (paraphrasing) to "kill the unbeliever even if you do not want to kill the unbeliever". Fortunately, only about 25% of Islam follow those passages. Unfortunately, 25% of Islam is about the same number as the entire population of the US. Just by that fact alone it makes Islam the only religion with a much higher violence rate than any other.

"Collective freedom has always meant the government is free to do whatever it wants"

i'd expect an american like you to be aware of moore v. harper then

"The Republicans are far from perfect in promoting freedom"

that's putting it lightly

Moore v. Harper. Gerrymandering along political boundaries has been going on since almost the beginning. The fact that some Democrats are upset because of Republican gerrymandering is just silly. Democrats do it just as much as Republicans.

It is because all politicians have the emotional maturity of a 2-year-old.

"Could you tell the rest of the liberals that?"

maybe in the future, but for right now, all i can say is "don't poke the bear."

"What are you doing still being on the left?"

backing ideas instead of pretending tradition worked or following the lowest common denominator

"backing ideas instead of pretending tradition worked or following the lowest common denominator"

If you're voting with the left you are backing theories that have brought nothing by misery, poverty and death.

And I am NOT backing any tradition, I am backing what has been proven to work every time it is tried. Freedom works.

All the left is offering is tyranny. I ask again, why is someone who seems to have a brain still a liberal?

"The left has already accused all whites of being white supremacists."

in 2015-2016 maybe. that was 6-7 years ago, and is irrelevant now.

"Do you think that the ideology of the Republicans and/or conservatives is rooted in fascism or Nazism?"

anyone who thinks that hasn't studied history

"There are plenty of liberals on ImgFlip who have called me and others fascists and/or Nazis all the time and they means all of the people on the right."

let them be your strawman, not me.

"anyone who thinks that hasn't studied history"

Could you tell the rest of the liberals that? The Dems have Antifa running around burning down businesses all because they believe everyone who is not with them is a fascist.

I remember seeing a clip of Keith Olbermann from back when George Bush was president. He said referring to Pres Bush, "Sir you are a fascist. You should get a t shirt with the word fascist on it". Bush was a lot of things, but he wasn't a fascist. I've hear other commentators on MSNBC and CNN refer to Republicans either as fascists or white supremacists. The late-night talk show host and Saturday Night Live have all referred to Republicans as fascists and/or white supremacists.

It is actually amazing to find someone who actually uses that grey matter inside their head. What are you doing still being on the left? Run! Run as fast as you can before the Democrat thought police shut you down.

"The fact that some Democrats are upset because of Republican gerrymandering is just silly"

although i know there are others, the only gerrymandered democrat state i know off the top of my head is maryland. however, republicans have to try really hard to gerrymander in states like texas and north carolina, since if they didn't, democrats would easily get the upper hand

"And I am NOT backing any tradition, I am backing what has been proven to work every time it is tried. Freedom works."

only when it is legit freedom, not some authoritarian-sponsored bs. what exactly are you backing? any specific positions?

"I ask again, why is someone who seems to have a brain still a liberal?"

liberal is not the word you think it means. i wouldn't back nancy pelosi. i'd support bernie sanders

"only when it is legit freedom, not some authoritarian-sponsored bs. what exactly are you backing? any specific positions?"

I am backing anything that promotes and defends the rights and freedom of the individual. The Republicans are far from perfect in promoting freedom, but the Democrats hate individual liberty.

"liberal is not the word you think it means." I know what it means, and I know that somehow the meanings of liberal and conservative based on John Locke and Thomas Hobbes have been reversed. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, but todays liberals have nothing in common with Jefferson at all. Conservatives, according to Hobbes, believe that people were basically bad and needed a strong central government. That is the exact opposite of what I and most conservatives believe. Today's conservatives are always complaining about big government while liberals are perfectly fine with creating more and more government agencies.

"i wouldn't back nancy pelosi. i'd support bernie sanders"

Bernie Sanders claims to be a socialist. Individual liberty is not found in socialism. Socialism is collective freedom, not individual freedom. Collective freedom has always meant the government is free to do whatever it wants. All governments have a history of extreme violence.

The US Constitution was written to put shackles on the government, to prevent it from doing what all governments do. Unfortunately, our government does not live within the bounds of the Constitution and that is why our government has done horrible things (i.e., the genocide of native Americans and the genocide of the unborn).

"Could a white Christian male (the most hated people in America)"

For supposedly being the most hated people in America, they sure seem to get voted into public office more than any other group

"For supposedly being the most hated people in America, they sure seem to get voted into public office more than any other group"

And why is it that Democrats, who are lost in identity politics, have only nominated white people, with the exception of Obama and Obama was half white. You would think you guys would be putting every race on the planet, except white, in all of your leadership positions. But you don't practice what you preach.

"And why is it that Democrats, who are lost in identity politics, have only nominated white people, with the exception of Obama and Obama was half white"

Obama, and every other non-white person democrats have elected to public office

"You would think you guys would be putting every race on the planet, except white, in all of your leadership positions. But you don't practice what you preach"

We don't preach "anyone but white people"

Obama was the first black Democrat to have ever nominated for president and he is half black. Why haven't you had any more non-whites running for president. Yes, there are non-white people in the House of Representatives. And they are on both sides of the aisle.

There are non-whites in the Senate and also, they are both sides of the aisle. The 1st 2 black senators were Republican.

For president I do think that the Republicans are far ahead of the Democrats in putting minority candidates.

Why should it even matter. The superficial identity politics game the liberals have been playing for at least half a century is irrelevant. What you are saying by playing that game is that minorities are somehow different than white people. We're all human beings and we all have similar wants and needs. Why should it matter that a white person represents a black person, or a black person represents a white person? The only real difference is skin color and skin color does not mean that whites and blacks think differently or that one is better than the other.

Why is it so important for liberals to play the identity politics game? The answer is: It is all about votes. You are using black people and trying to keep them separated ideologically just so they will vote for Democrats. If you can keep blacks thinking that whites are all racists and out to get them then you can count on their votes. And not just blacks but all non-white races. But that game is coming to an end as more and more minorities are waking up to your manipulations and racism.