jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

A closet r****thomosexual knows he's a homosexual, just as the closet r****t knows he's a r****t. And no one is fooled by it.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

You have the educational level of a frigging Walnut. In fact, you are so frigging stupid you have to be reminded how to put on shoes.....

Your filthy non educated vocabulary proves exactly what you are...zip, zilch, nada.

We all know you are in Love with Barry Boy....but he does not want you and it must just K**L you to see him with some other man...so this one's for you, Mr. Chooo Chooo Train....hahahahah hohohohohoalalalalalhehehehehehehehe ....................

Your Gay Couple of the Month Poster

KHH1

You're going to make yourself nutty trying to make me as nutty as you already are. Maybe you are an emotional person who thinks they can say sensationalist schit and feel empowered by the shock value they think that bullschit possesses. That schit probably gives you your h**eful hard-on and self-esteems you....but the schit you say does not make me blink...when you meet socially dysfunctional muthaphuckas....you set low azz expectations.....they never prove you wrong....so there is nothing ever surprising about you muthaphuckahs....never nothing informative..just negativity...they should call people like you "useless eaters"...because you're just here taking up space, generating a carbon footprint....and making someone miserable...a real Christmas present to the world YOU muthaphuckahs are...... :roll:...I think this is a good standard post in response to your bulls**t.........anything to save useless labor (typing in response to your dumbazz)....I could be typing something worthwhile or even proprietary...and i'm phucking off shooting bullschit back and forth with your afflicted azz...you can have that schit as a way of life....there is better way to spend one's time.....maybe drink a brew and find a white or black "Poor Man's Beyonce" and smack her on da azz......got to be better than phucking around with this ignorant azz schit of YOURS

KHH1

This will be my standard response go get used to it..this portion tells the story as I see it:

You're going to make yourself nutty trying to make me as nutty as you already are. Maybe you are an emotional person who thinks they can say sensationalist schit and feel empowered by the shock value they think that bullschit possesses. That schit probably gives you your h**eful hard-on and self-esteems you....but the schit you say does not make me blink...when you meet socially dysfunctional muthaphuckas....you set low azz expectations.....they never prove you wrong....so there is nothing ever surprising about you muthaphuckahs....never nothing informative..just negativity...

Anonymous Loc: Hamtucket jersey city

Your not saying I'm r****t or a homosexual right?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

No. Just saying . . . There's no such thing as a closet r****t. It is not conveying the meaning I meant to convey.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

FIRST GET YOUR HISTORY CORRECT!!!!!!

Falsifying History In Behalf Of Agendas

July 21, 2015 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: |  Print This Article

Falsifying History In Behalf Of Agendas
Paul Craig Roberts

In an article on April 13 (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/04/13/power-lies/ ) I used the so-called Civil War and the myths with which court historians have encumbered that war to show how history is falsified in order to serve agendas. I pointed out that it was a war of secession, not a civil war as the South was not fighting the North for control of the government in Washington. As for the matter of s***ery, all of Lincoln’s statements prove that he was neither for the b****s nor against s***ery. Yet he has been turned into a civil rights hero, and a war of northern aggression, whose purpose Lincoln stated over and over was “to preserve the union” (the empire), has been converted into a war to free the s***es.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln said it was “a practical war measure” that would help in defeating the South and would convince Europe, which was considering recognizing the Confederacy, that Washington was motivated by “something more than ambition.” The proclamation only freed s***es in the Confederacy, not in the Union. As Lincoln’s Secretary of State put it: “we emancipated s***es where we cannot reach them and hold them in bondage where we can set them free.”

A few readers took exception to the t***h and misconstrued a statement of historical facts as a r****t defense of s***ery. In the article below, the well-known African-American, Walter Williams, points out that the war was about money, not s***ery. Just as Jews who tell the t***h about Israel’s policies are called “self-hating Jews,” will Walter Williams be called a “self-hating black?” Invective is used as a defense against t***h.

R****t explanations can be very misleading. For example, it is now a given that the police are r****ts because they k**l without cause b***k A******ns and almost always get away with it. Here is a case of a true fact being dangerously misconstrued. In actual fact, the police k**l more w****s than b****s, and they get away with these murders also. So how is race the explanation?

The real explanation is that the police have been militarized and trained to view the public as enemy who must first be subdued with force and then questioned. This is the reason that so many innocent people, of every race, are brutalized and k**led. No doubt some police are r****ts, but overall their attitude toward the public is a brutal attitude toward all races, g****rs, and ages. The police are a danger to everyone, not only to b****s.

We see the same kind of mistake made with the Confederate Battle F**g. Reading some of the accounts of the recent Charleston church shootings, I got the impression that the Confederate Battle F**g, not Dylann Roof, was responsible for the murders. Those declaring the f**g to be a “symbol of h**e” might be correct. Possibly it is a symbol of their hatred of the “white South,” a hatred that dates from the mischaracterization of what is called the “Civil War.” As one commentator pointed out, if flying over s***ery for four years makes the Confederate f**g a symbol of h**e, what does that make the U.S. f**g, which flew over s***ery for 88 years?

F**gs on a battlefield are information devices to show soldiers where their lines are. In the days of black powder, battles produced enormous clouds of smoke that obscured the line between opposing forces. In the first battle of Bull Run confusion resulted from the similarity of the f**gs. Thus, the Confederate Battle F**g was born. It had nothing to do with h**e.

Americans born into the centralized state are unaware that their forebears regarded themselves principally as residents of states, and not as Americans. Their loyalty was to their state. When Robert E. Lee was offered command in the Union Army, he declined on the grounds that he was a Virginian and could not go to war against his native country of Virginia.

A nonsensical myth has been created that Southerners made b****s into s***es because Southerners are r****t. The fact of the matter is that s***es were brought to the new world as a labor force for large scale agriculture. The first s***es were w****s sentenced to s***ery under European penal codes. Encyclopedia Virginia reports that “convict laborers could be purchased for a lower price than indentured white or ens***ed African laborers, and because they already existed outside society’s rules, they could be more easily exploited.”

White s***ery also took the form of indentured servants in which w****s served under contract as s***es for a limited time. Native Indians were ens***ed. But w****s and native Indians proved to be unsatisfactory labor forces for large scale agriculture. The w****s had no resistance to malaria and yellow fever. It was discovered that some Africans did, and Africans were also accustomed to hot climates. Favored by superior survivability, Africans became the labor force of choice.

S***es were more prominent in the Southern colonies than in the north, because the land in the South was more suitable for large scale agriculture. By the time of the American Revolution, the South was specialized in agriculture, and s***ery was an inherited institution that long pre-dated both the United States and the Confederate States of America. The percentage of s***e owners in the population was very small, because s***ery was associated with large land holdings that produced export crops.

The motive behind s***ery was to have a labor force in order to exploit the land. Those with large land holdings wanted labor and did not care about its color. Trial and error revealed that some Africans had superior survivability to malaria, and thus Africans became the labor force of choice. There was no free labor market. The expanding frontier offered poor w****s land of their own, which they preferred to wages as agricultural workers.

A r****t explanation of s***ery and the Confederacy satisfies some agendas, but it is ahistorical.

Explanations are not justifications. Every institution, every vice, every virtue, and language itself has roots. Every institution and every cause has vested interests defending them. There have been a few efforts, such as the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution, to remake the world in a day by casting off all existing institutions, but these attempts came a cropper.

Constant charges of r****m can both create and perpetuate r****m, just as the constant propaganda out of Washington is creating Islamophobia and Russophobia in the American population. We should be careful about the words we use and reject agenda-driven explanations.

Readers are forever asking me, “what can we do.” The answer is always the same. We can’t do anything unless we are informed.

From LewRockwell.com
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/07/walter-e-williams/was-1861-a-civil-war/ 
Historical T***h
By Walter E. Williams
July 21, 2015

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of s***ery. We might ask, How much of the war was about s***ery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing s***ery? Let’s look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the s***e states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with s***es or s***ery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: “My declarations upon this subject of Negro s***ery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making v**ers or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political e******y.”

What about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: “I view the matter (of s***es’ emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the r*******n.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union. London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where s***es were to be freed: only in those states “in r*******n against the United States.” S***es remained s***es in states not in r*******n — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, “We show our sympathy with s***ery by emancipating s***es where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas [from Mexico].

Why didn’t Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue wer

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

T***H WHO IS REAL R****T!!!!
YOUR SUPPORTERS A R****T PARTY AND AGENDA, WOW!!!

http://russp.us/r****m.htm

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and R****m

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose s***ery, and Republicans eventually abolished s***ery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand s***ery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing s***ery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about s***ery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported s***ery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end s***ery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end s***ery but also to endow the freed s***es with full citizenship, e******y, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-s***ery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed s***es, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed s***es, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed s***es the right to v**e, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed s***es and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had v**ed the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats v**ed in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats v**ed for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on r****m. The Democrats just switched from overt r****m to a subversive strategy of getting b****s as dependent as possible on government to secure their v**es. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy r****ts.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by r****m. While it is certainly true that many Southern r****ts abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial e******y and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most r****t Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently t***sfers all the past sins of the Democrats (s***ery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending s***ery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some r****t Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a r****t -- at least not an overt r****t like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial e******y, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 P**********l e******n to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as r****t, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more r****t than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress v**e for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's v**e on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its r****ts, but the notion that Republicans are more r****t than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by L*****ts, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for a******n, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized b****s, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those n****rs v****g Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with r****m.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely v**e well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "r****t" Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in k*****g a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively k*****g hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is r****t. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse r****m," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of w***e s*******y, albeit "benevolent" w***e s*******y rather than the openly hostile w***e s*******y of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are r****t and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

KHH1

This is 2015...that is why only one GOP member went to the Selma commemoration...coincidental? I think not...just like how people know here in OPP who to describe as r****t and give the true r****ts a pass...save that right wing revisionist bullschit....do you fools really think s***ery would have ended by 1865 if the South won the war? who in the phuck do you think you're talking to?

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

I believe I'm speaking to someone disconnected with t***h and reality. The current c*******t (democrat) regime has a laundry list of r****t agendas and policies, wrapped into a play on words package and cherry on top. Your complete trust in repeated lies of propaganda, blinds your ability to see t***h.

Your a very angry man, on multiple threads you continue to profane, and attack with stereotypes, yet not once have I used such against you, or r****t comments,
That's not rational from someone claiming hire education. Also of several attempts not once have you refuted any claims from my threads with evidence, or even civil opinion, just screaming with h**e and r****m,
For once show all who post threads here you have substance and the intelligence to debate. Thus far several only make attacks and ass'es of themselves including you.

Steve700

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

This is such Bull S**t. To me it is absolute proof of something really rotten. Obviously Obama and Karry do not give a damn about these folks and/or are extremely weak, naïve and stupid. I think even you KHH1, know that if Trump had been president those 4 would have been released long before any agreement. Trump would have 1st tightened up sanctions to the ultimate degree before negotiations, and the demand would have been made, along with strong chastisement & harsh threatening words that those prisoners must be released before any negotiations begin. Obama is a Muslim & Kerry is a naïve i***t & pacifist pussy. Obama really could care less because will agree with anything Obama says.

I think these last 2 pictures explain the whole thing of why those prisoners were released & why we got such a lousy deal.

KHH1

you would like me to be angry..because the right are miserable phucks themselves...their policies do not add happiness to life at all....but in actuality...i'm grinning like chester cheetah as I tear into their vile asses....amusing the hell out of myself......and that is "higher" education....tell you fellow righties to fade their nastiness and civlity will reign supreme on this end..but as long as you do that silent agreement thing with them and attempt to lecture me.....you can..........

KHH1

everything stops at 1964......hilarious........

Steve700

Wooooooo, that's really d********g. I don't know why you would be so critical about his comments about you, as to make a comment like that.(Considering everything he said was true, correct & right on) And what you ask is really d********g

How is anyone going to kiss your ass, when you're so busy loving it your self. NICE BLEACH JOB !


The way you and many of your fellow blacks act you're going to leave No other choice