rjoeholl

Never in our history have the people of this country been so torn and divided. We can't even agree on who is male and who is female. In fact we are torn apart in everything but geography. So, I propose that we go ahead and form two countries; maybe use the Mississippi as a dividing line. The left can have the old sniffer and the right will take President Trump for another eight years (the left wasted his first four). Besides, our country, our rules. Then we'll sit back and see who contacts who for aid first. My guess is the liberal left will be knee deep in sheep droppings within two weeks. They won't know whether to run, s**t or go blind.
Just for the fun of it, let's make up some rules; I'll start with
1. Anyone from the left crossing the river without permission will be shot on sight.
2.

American Vet

Except for some extremely rare medical conditions, there are only 'male' and 'female'.....follow the science.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

I'm interested. Which side of the Mississippi do you propose we take?

Lonewolf

Trump will sell you to Putin and make you pick cotton to clothe the north.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Geez you're dumb! The Mississippi River runs North and south!

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Read some history, something covering the years 1860 - 1864 at least.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Wasn't that the short period of when you l*****ts were taught a lesson in your physical s***ery of b****s?

It appears as though you people need a new lesson.

jwrevagent

I would be willing to take that chance. Probably a better life than the lawlessness and anarchy in the other country. Might even have enough food, and electricity to survive. I imagine the Left will be fighting for the spotted owl, and trees, though they have no idea the proper way to handle a forest-no controlled burns for them, no sir-let er rip! So even if I were sold to Putin, I would much prefer that to living in a Blue horror country.

Boy from the Bronx

So, the l*****ts were to blame for the ens***ement of the black people in the days before and during the Civil War, huh?

BULL!

The term "l*****t" is sometimes used to mean "liberal." A liberal is someone who believes in far and equal treatment, freedom and justice for everyone (the word is actually derived from a Latin word meaning "free man"). So, would it make sense for a liberal or a l*****t to support s***ery? I don't think so.

The fact is that the s***eowners of old were considered conservative for their day. One of the definitions of "conservative" is one who is slow to, or opposes, change, and that describes the s***eowners to a T! They were definitely against change. They believed that s***ery was simply a part of the "natural order of things," that it was endorsed by nature, by history, even by the Bible itself. They argued against the idea of abolishing s***ery or granting ex-s***es equal rights, because they felt that to do so was "unnatural," "immoral," even "ungodly," and that in order to preserve the "Southern way of life," everything in the South had to remain exactly as they have been for centuries. The Southern s***eowners, as well as those who supported and defended s***ery, were obviously against changing anything about the s***ery system, or about the South in general, and could therefore, hardly be called "liberal" or "l*****t" in any way, so they had to have been conservative.

I can just hear the cries of rage and objection from the right-wing crazies who detest the Democratic Party, who are wailing "Boy from the Bronx, how can you say that the s***eowners were conservative? They were all DEMOCRATS! So, they had to have been L*****TS! Why are you trying to rewrite history? What you're saying is horrible, it's f**e news, it's C****e propaganda, it's immoral for you to say anything we conservatives disagree with! MY GOD, IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!"

Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating, but not too much.

Yes, the Southern s***eowners, as well as most of the people of the Old South in general, were indeed Democrats, but they were different from the kind we know today. They were CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS! They had to be, if they didn't believe in changing the way things were supposed to be in the South. If they were liberal Democrats, they probably wouldn't own s***es at all.

A lot of people don't realize this, because today we tend to associate the Democratic Party with the left, and the Republican Party with the right, but that hasn't always been the case.

At the time of the great "Red Scare" following the end of World War Two, when Americans were afraid of C*******t infiltration of this country, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was set up to investigate the "Red Menace." Most of the members of the committee were, in fact, Conservative Democrats from the South, where most of the people living there wouldn't dream of v****g Republican, since the G.O.P. was considered "the party of Abraham Lincoln," whom most Southerners weren't too fond of, for obvious reasons, whereas the Democrats were the party of "W***e S*******y."

Because most of HUAC were Southern Conservative Democrats, many feared that the committee was being used, not to uncover C*******t agents in the United States, but to harass people who were of different races, colors, religions, nationalities, even political opinions, or to discredit any organization that dealt with racial and social issues. This fear was probably best expressed in an editorial cartoon by Herbert Block (or "Herblock," as he signed his name on his cartoons). The cartoon showed a stereotyped "Southern politician" with "HUAC" written on his coat, and holding a double-barrelled shotgun in his hand. Behind him are two other men; one of them is a member of the Ku Klux Klan in full regalia carrying a lynching rope, and the other one is a mean-looking man with the words "PROFESSIONAL BIGOTS" on his cover-alls, carrying a rifle over his left shoulder, and a copy of Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" in his right arm. This trio seems to be following a set of footprints in the ground in front of them. The "HUAC" man is talking to an ordinary looking fellow in a business suit, who has apparently suggested to HUAC that he should investigate his two r****t companions. "Investigate 'em?" HUAC says in a thick Southern accent, "Dey's mah posse!"

In many ways, these fears were justified. For example, Congressman Martin Dies (D-Texas), who was the head of the committee, was a r****t and a segregationist who had once been a guest of honor at a KKK meeting in 1934. He was even suspected of being a F*****t and/or N**i sympathizer! (As might be expected, the committee did little to investigate N**i organizations in America, and even less to check up on the Klan, preferring to concentrate on the C*******ts, even during World War Two, when America was at war with the N**is, and the Soviet Union was one of our most important allies) Another member of the committee had an assistant who was allegedly involved in the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank for the two year old murder of a fourteen year old girl named Mary Phagan (many people believe that Frank was innocent of the crime, and that he was suspected and convicted because he was a Jew).

Incidentally, Congressman Dies suspected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of allowing C*******ts to infiltrate the Government and that the President's New Deal policies were leading the United States to C*******m (ironically, both Dies and Roosevelt were Democrats; in fact, the Ku Klux Klan originally backed FDR because he was a Democrat, but they retracted their support when Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor, began speaking openly about racial problems in America). Dies even once claimed that in 1938, Roosevelt had told him, "I don't believe in C*******m anymore than you do, but there's nothing wrong with the C*******ts in our Government. Some of the best friends I've got are C*******ts." The thing is that Dies didn't say anything about it until 1950, twelve years after FDR supposedly made this statement, and five years after the President was dead, and was therefore no longer around to challenge the Congressman's accusation. Of course, those on the far-right excepted this story at face value, and repeated it in reputable, as well as disreputable, Anti-C*******t circles. Right-wing activist John A. Stormer believed this story and referred to it twice in his 1964 book entitled "None Dare Call It Treason." Many others, however, have disputed Dies' allegations, wondering why he waited so long to make such a revelation. They argue that it seems unlikely that Roosevelt would foolishly make a Pro-C*******t statement to such a zealous (or overzealous, depending on your point of view) Anti-C*******t like Martin Dies, although he may have told him that he was exaggerating the size of the C*******t threat in the United States.

The point is that not all Democrats are l*****ts or liberals, just like not all Republicans are Conservatives. One may recall Senator John Anderson, a LIBERAL REPUBLICAN, who ran for President as an Independent candidate in 1980 (he was defeated by the more conservative Republican Ronald Reagan, who also defeated Democrat Jimmy Carter).

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

I don't read long winded rhetoric.

jwrevagent

Why not? It may give you a different perspective on things-at the least it will give you info about how some people think. I did not think it was long winded at all-and it certainly was not rhetoric-there were some facts in there, that I will have to check out for myself because I never heard them before, but it did not take long to read. You miss a lot if you define "long winded rhetoric" so widely. But that is up to you, of course.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Let me clarify....it depends on who the poster is.

jwrevagent

Oh-Okay