An interesting thought, maybe a conspiracy theory

[KL-666]

Just think about this. How many people show up at presidential elections? 30%? So a majority is 16%. Now is that a democracy where 16% dictates what everyone else should think?

Kind regards, Vincent

[Lydiot]

wriggle wriggle, the liberal ... yes or no, did it happen or not?

Sorry, but the "f-word" is absolutely appropriate here: Are you fucking kidding with that question?

Do you meet a lot of "liberals" that claim it didn't happen?

[jwocky]

@Lydiot: I tried to establish a base and needed just now four posts to make a liberal admit, the Civil War "probably" happened. So, take this thread as evidence for the necessity to get some clear words out of liberals. Which poses the question, do you admit, the Civil War happened?

[jwocky]

@KL-666: I can't speak for the Netherlands, but the election turnouts over the last few elections here were quite high. In some cases suspiciously" high, there was a district in Ohio with 104% turnout of which 108% voted for Obama in the last presidential elections. But nevertheless, lets skip those little sidelines for now and stick with slavery and Democrats, even you don't know yet, where this leads and what the connection to Hilary is. We will get there, but experience has convinced me, when discussing with liberals, go step by step and make them speak out whether they agree or not otherwise, you explain something of twenty steps to them and when the don't like step 20, they suddenly come to the idea, they didn't agree to step 3 retroactively.
So ... you agree, the first shots of the Civil War were basically a Democrat's responsibility either way? And since Lydiot jumped in, we should give him time to catch up and declare whether he so far agrees or not?

[jwocky]

On another sidenote, it's late in the Netherlands and here I have to do something that will keep me off the computer for a few hours, so we have to continue tomorrow

[Lydiot]

@Lydiot: I tried to establish a base and needed just now four posts to make a liberal admit, the Civil War "probably" happened. So, take this thread as evidence for the necessity to get some clear words out of liberals. Which poses the question, do you admit, the Civil War happened?

If people don't answer "yes" it's probably because they think it's just too dumb a question. Of course it happened.

Now what?

How many "liberals" have you met that think it didn't happen? I answered your question, now you answer mine.

[KL-666]

Hi Jwocky,

There is no way that i can say "for sure" of second hand information. About first hand, my own experience, i can be quite sure. But second hand information exists in my mind in terms of likelihood. Depending on the trustworthiness of the source, the likeliness is high or low. Things described in history books i think very likely happened. Things told to me by Fox News very unlikely happened.

Try to understand that you can not get more from me than "very likely" about second hand information. It is not a game, but it sits in my mind like that, so you and i will have to live with it. Therefore i find it not very respectful to cry victory "look he denies it" when "very likely" is said. From my perspective your black and white world looks odd. But do i denounce you for that? You do not hear me say that you are silly because you turn high probabilities into certainties.

So your Spanish inquisition really can not work out. You can yell Confess! as you like, but "for sure" is not in my vocabulary for second hand information.

Btw. this is not a trait of liberalism but of phenomenology. I already went to great length to explain in another thread a while ago. And i am not going to do it all over again. We have different minds and we have to live with the fact.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Well, I tell you a little secret ... I don't even know what Fox News tells these days, I don't watch too much TV at all currently, as you could may conclude form the long time I am on the computer, most of the time to actually work. But see, on the other hand, this recurring FOX theme is another thing that shows the liberal hubris. Of course, MSNBC and other left-lening outlets are considered from the start as "credible" while conservatives are stamped as "uneducated because some watch FOX. Many of those image propaganda tricks were invented by Dr. Josef Goebbels and they were so successful in terms of many many not peopl just swallowing it but also parroting it over and over again. Like you just did with the next FOX joke. That doesn't mean, FOX is more credible than MSNBC, but then, given how often they are caught lying for their ideology, it is hard to be less credible than they are. Or look at Yahoo news. In our days, the value of the big news outlets is merely to get an infor that something happened and then, if you want to know what really happened, you have to go for the local outlets.

About history: Now, history, or most of it, happened before any of us was born. That doesn't mean, it happened. Some things are open to interpretation, or so especially liberal historians claimed over the last two decades, but about most things, we can be pretty sure. However, the attitude to label everything that happened back then from the start without further evaluation as "likely" and not "certain" is, aside of the intellectual ballgame basically a psychological one. It means for those, who read this, there is no need to learn from history. Because there is doubt it happened.
But well, since we both don't want to stray too far from the subject at hand, lets resynchronize here.

We have all agreed, the Civil War happened, started by Democrats who were then the pro-slavery party, and the Confederation lost the Civil War. So we can use this as a good starting point for today.
That led, during the reconstruction era to the forming of the KKK, actually, to stay in historical correct terms, the first KKK, in 1866 inPulaski/TN. In general, the KKK was what we would today call an insurgent or terrorist organization, aiming to overthrwo the Republican governments forced on the Southern States after the lost Civil War.
The leadership of the Klan and the group that tried to evolve it from a cell structure of autonomous working terror groups into a big hierarchical organized structure were former Confederate veterans, all of them also Democrats. Nathan Bedford Forrest becamse the first Grand Wizard (a title later worn with pride by other Democrats too). Another Democrat and also a former Confederate general, Goerge Washington Gordon, bececame in 1867 the first Grand Dragon (another title other Democrats wore later with pride). So, I don't want to bore you with a name list of founding members or who joined which sub group short after, there are basically hundreds of known Democrats who took leadership positions in their local chapters while the foot soldiers were everything from white farmers to common criminals who used this movement for their own criminal enterprises. And because the KKK offered their members the opportunity to violence, there was a bottom level of sadists and rapists who thrived well there because the KKK invented also the use of rape as political weapon.
However, instead of going too deep in the names here, lets just quote historian Eric Foner:

In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.

So, at this time, right after the Civil War, Democrats were still trying to reeastablish slaver, while the Republicans had just given freedom to the slaves and went into the process of writing Civil Rights Acts. Which was exactly what the Democrats and their KKK term tried to prevent. Between 1866 and 1877, more than 3000 freed men (aka freed slaves) and the Republicans who had freed them fell victims to terror acts committed by Democrats and
and especially their designated terror arm, the Klan. Which, by numbers, makes the Democratic party the second most successful terror organization who ever operated on American soil, after Al-Qaeda.
However, the Republicans were kind of hard to stop. You could kill some, but there came always new ones up. They just didn't bow to terrorism. The derogative terms, Democrats used for Southern Republicans back then was by the way "carpetbaggers", "scalawags", and, just on a funny side note "teabaggers" because some Republicans had used the historical tea party rhetoric in connection with the freedom rights for all, including the freed African-Americans. So, one more reason why learning from history is useful, because a lot of things, we see today from the Democrats are not really new, they used the same tricks and terminology already in the late 1800s while murdering Freedmen and Republicans. But that didn'tstop theRepublicans, they were busy writing Civil Right Amendments.

The Civil Rights Act from 1866 gave citizenship to every person born in the US regardless of skin color. Of course, this one, introduced by Sen, Lyman Turnbull (Republican from Illlinois), was voted through with the Republican majorities, but it had to overcome first a veto by Democratic President Andrew Johnson (another Democrat and KKK man). However, to be honest, the act was aimed to give people of African-American descent the citizenship, it didn't give it to the Native-Indians. So, one can note here, that also Republicans need sometimes a little time and a step by step approach.
Long story short, Lyman was two times target for assassination attempts by Democrats, his Civil Rights Act had to be voted through twice due to Andrew Johnson'S presidential veto, but the act made it, it is today the 14th Amendment.

The Civil Rights Act from 1871 was introduced Samuel Shallabarger (Republican from Ohio) on behalf of President Grant. The aim was to empoer the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in proceedings against Klan members. Which is basically an act still used against members of other terror organizations. The Civil Rights Act, that basically also declared the especial heinousness of hate crimes (wthout using that rather modern term though), was voted through by the Republican mqajorities against the Democrats and signed into law by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant.Most of it exists still today as 42 U.S.C §1983.

This was basically the Act that broke the first Klan's neck. It made persecution of Democratics racists who went violent easier and back then, people were not so iffy about the death penalty. So caught Klan members who were convicted of murder were just hanged and that prevented repeat offenders and diminished the Democratic activists base significantly. By the late 1870s, the Klan had virtually vanished as a result of two factors: Harsher prosecution and the Democrats had decided, the backlash against their terror operation had caused them more harm than anything else and thus tried to distance themselves more and more form their own brain child.

So, at this point we see, the story as told today by Democrats about their own history is not consistent with the facts. The first Klan didn't become Republicans, they got hanged by the Republicans. And the Democrats didn't distance themselves from the Klan for ethical reasons, but the election of Republican Ulysses S. Grant had shown them, they had lost by the consequent use of rape, torture and murder the swing voters. They had been able to bring Andrew Johnson into theWhite House, mostly the work of the Northern Democrats, but in 1868, they had to eat a landslide and it was because people were upset about the violence, the Democrats had spread using the KKK as a weapon. They discarded that weapon, not for ethical reasons but to look better to the voters. And, whenever you put a weapon in the closet for later use, it is still there, in a way, isn't it?
So at this point we also see, the Republicans had already two Civil Rights Acts made laws (the whole modern story of the Democrats as mother party of Civil Rights, as they tell it today is based on exactly ONE Civil Rights Act.)

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 prohibited discrimination in "public accomodations". Means, no reserved rows in post coaches or trains for white people. It was about 80 years till Rosa Parks would be born, but theRepublicans already wrote the law that would have allowed hoer to sit wherever she wanted in that bus. The Act was introdiced by Senator Charles Sumner, a Republican from Massachusetts with the assistance of John Mercer (the African-American founder of the law department at Howard University) and signed into law by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant.
However, this time, the Democrats went to court, to Supreme Court to be exactly. The whole proceedings took years but the main argument was, that Congress was not allowed to regulate the behavior of people ... which was quite far fetched because all laws did that in one way or the other. It was a pure political move. But the Supreme Court was still loaded with judges from the Andrew Johnson time and thus, in 1883, parts of the act were declared "unconstitutional" by Democratic judges in the Supreme Court, namely the prohibition of discrimination in public transport. The Demorats had created the stage for Rosa Parks almost 95 years later by upholding segregation. But this Act would come back much later ... in the most unexpected form.

So, by the 1880s, the Republicans had already written three Civil Rights Acts, lost one of them in Supreme Court, which is more than the Democrats have done till today. Which proves, the image of the Democrats as mother party for liberals and civil rights is a fake, a forgery for propaganda purposes. Since they ride still today on this faked image, we are obviously slowly approaching Hilary and Co.
By the 1880s, the KKK was also virtually dead or at least hibernating. Means, the people were dead, the idea hibernating.

Can you admit to those facts so far?

[LesterBoffo]

So, a "liberal" avoids the fact discussion and just accuses any opponent of his ideology of "smearing" his party leaders ... what is new, Lester? Lets start at the beginning. Do you claim, the Civil War didn't happen?

Irony? You're soaking in it.

You just labeled Liberals as all pot smokers and into unfaithful marriages. Please don't be pulling these tired old 'smears' out when you demand respect for your party's foibles. There's a reason I called this a muddlemarch. It means to engage your discussion, I have to get down into the muck you are making and wallowing in. All this just to address what is a falsity in your first 'smear'. Where were your ancestors when the Civil War happened? I know where mine were.. Do the sins of our great-great grandfathers apply to our own lives and morals?

[jwocky]

@Lester, actually if liberals would read more carefully, you would maybe have noticed, the pot-smoking and free-love promoting picture was painted by your fellow liberal Vincent. He painted thqat picture and accused me without any evidence, that would be my picture of liberals. To which I responded, if they only were, but they are much more dangerous than that.

So, after the liberlas did the self-smearing and wrongfully accused the conservative for doing it ... what is new?
And here is a funny thing, I know also where my ancestors were during that time ... long story, yes, and it actually also involves America, but that is a story for another day.
And of course, it was only a question of time till a liberal would turn up and twist all history around ... because history proves all the Democratic party nowadays claims to be is actually a lie. They were never the party of Civil Rights, they were never the party of equality ... they are just a bunch of politicians selling to the gullibles.

So congrats, Lester, you just won the Silver Lemon for being the cliché

- you accused a conservative for something, a liberal wrote
- you are unable to make a clear statement where you ancestors were, just hints, in case you have later to change the story
- you already prepare to dismiss history as something to leanr from because what we can learn form history will hurt your ideology and probably make it impossible to follow blind in the future.

Because, you know, the sins of the grandfathers don't apply to your lives. Selling the same lies and add new ones does.

*edited for a typo*