Death Of A Nation

[Pavlov]

You said party realignment of 1965. I'd say that's rather definitive and "instant" in politics. Of course I know about shifts over decades, but you're the one who insisted, winer.

Sorry

are you saying there wasn't a party realignment after 1965?

Now you have to lie after seeing the question multiple times.

lol

[Winehole23]

I said after 1965. At least be honest.

[Spurtacular]

Nope, you simply never answered the question.

And you never will.




There it is -- all you have to do is say yes or no.

But you won't.

It's killing you.

So you'll have to squirm more.

lol

at the tantrum
I'd list the dialogue that shows how blatantly wrong you were if you were worth it
It wouldn't stop you from doing it ten times the next day and the day after
Today's shameless chump

[Pavlov]

tantrum

lol buzzword.

Just answer.

are you saying there wasn't a party realignment after 1965?

It's an easy one.

Even you can get it.

[Spurtacular]

I said after 1965. At least be honest.

There's been party realignment going back decades before that. But if we're talking post 1965, yea your racist Democrats re-strategized to rope-a-dope black people and keep them tethered and dependent.

[Spurtacular]

lol buzzword.

Just answer.

It's an easy one.

Even you can get it.

You could just stop throwing a tantrum if you don't like being called out on it. But then you wouldn't be you if you did that.

[Pavlov]

There's been party realignment going back decades before that. But if we're talking post 1965, yea your racist Democrats re-strategized to rope-a-dope black people and keep them tethered and dependent.

You're the least honest person on this board.

[Pavlov]

tantrum

crutch

[Winehole23]

You're the least honest person on this board.

eh, at least he gave his own take this time

[Pavlov]

eh, at least he gave his own take this time

After he flat out lied about what you asked.

Dude thought he could get away with it.

lol

[Spurtacular]

After he flat out lied about what you asked.

Dude thought he could get away with it.

lol

"Flat out lied." If you look back at the text, it's obvious I missed the word "post" and responded accordingly.
Chump lashing out all over the place

Honestly, this wasn't even your battle. You were just piggybacking and being a pest. It's sad that you need that much attention.

[Pavlov]

"Flat out lied." If you look back at the text, it's obvious I missed the word "post" and responded accordingly.

You missed it every time I reposted it.

You admit to being pretty slow there.

lol

lashing out

again

Honestly

You can never say that on this board.

[Spurtacular]

You missed it every time I reposted it.

You admit to being pretty slow there.

lol

again

You can never say that on this board.

You could not be more in drama queen mode. Damn son, I didn't make a big thing of it when he accused me of not answering even though winer didn't tag me to be alert to it. And then I did answer even though I was upfront that I could hardly give a .

how is it weak?

are you saying there wasn't a party realignment after 1965?

There was (at some point) b/c your party was offering free . Doesn't mean the leadership magically didn't become not racist.

And yea, I forgot that the word post was in there. Mistakes happen but you got to be a raging butt and somehow make this an honestly issue. Your grudge posting is just you being consistent with being a sociopath.

so Spurtacular, what's your take on party realignment post 1965?

[Pavlov]

You could not be more in drama queen mode. Damn son, I didn't make a big thing of it when he accused me of not answering even though winer didn't tag me to be alert to it.

Now you are making a big thing out of it.

And then I did answer even though I was upfront that I could hardly give a .

You lied about what he said then gave the most dishonest answer you took hours to formulate.

And yea, I forgot that the word post was in there. Mistakes happen but you got to be a raging butt and somehow make this an honestly issue.

Sorry, you can't get away with that after seeing that question that many times.

Your grudge posting is just you being consistent with being a sociopath.

Stealing a shtick and using one of your buzzwords in a single sentence.

Bravo.

[ElNono]

Moore has no problem with lying. D'Souza deals in facts

[ElNono]

Well it's hard to just narrow it down to one thing. I'd have to say the obvious historical accuracy and superb acting are the first things that jump out from the preview. You just don't see that type of combination from Hollywood anymore. I was also impressed that D'Souza correctly recognizes DJT is as transformative a POTUS as Lincoln, although I was a little disappointed he did not also note the similarities of DJT and Jesus. So while it does have some faults I think that getting out the truth like this will help Trump in his quest to get 90% of the black vote in 2020.

[ElNono]

Absolutely.

Contextually there's more than enough to figure that out.

After the Lincoln freed the slaves and won the war, the KKK quickly became an anti-Republican paramilitary force. White Republicans were among their first victims.

With the end of Republican hegemony at the end of Reconstruction came the return of the Democratic party and the ins ution of Jim Crow, with the KKK continuing to serve as irregular justice.

but it wasn't like it was a bunch of Democratic pols who founded it: it was a bunch of red-assed Confederate veterans and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

it's a well known historical fact that Woodrow Wilson was a white supremacist and arranged a viewing of "Birth of a Nation" in the White House.

also that Robert Byrd joined the KKK as a teenager. he says it was because he was jejune and a social climber: it's just what you did if you wanted to get ahead in West Virginia in the 1930s, according to Mr. Byrd.

I bet a solid 1/2 of Americans can tell you that Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat and what it means to be a Dixiecrat; we're not talking about hermetic secrets here, but ordinary US history.

It cracks me up that y'all think we're hearing it for the very first time from Dinesh D'Souza.

face it: white supremacy is not some hoary old 19th century relic, but has been mainstream and socially acceptable within my lifetime -- I am about 50 years old.

Thanks for the history lesson, but anybody that looks at the South these days, and it's not eloquently disingenuous, like D'Souza is, can tell that what used to be the Southern Democrats are the Southern Republicans today.

Heck, Lincoln (much like his spiritual successor Saint Reagan, also shot at) would be considered today a deep-state, RINO, weak leader that bent over to the blacks! Sad!

[ElNono]

vy65: I think Spurtacular is capable of saying what he thinks but chooses not to.

Mixture of cowardice and guile behind that I would say. It seldom goes well for him he when he actually discloses topical opinions.

Playing the dozens is more his thing.

To be fair, Spurtacular is a self-admitted racist (although his claim is that racism doesn't exist, which is, factually, provably false). And I don't mention this as a personal judgement, everybody is who they chose to be, for the most part.

I just feel that the main reason you're unlikely to get a response is that he doesn't really admits/identifies a problem, or the answer doesn't advance his confirmation bias, so it logically follows that there's nothing to respond to.

[Spurtacular]

I don't waste my time (watching D'Souza films). Same with Moore films... but there's certainly an audience for confirmation bias flicks...

Moore has no problem with lying. D'Souza deals in facts; that's why chump had to rely on saying his conclusions were wild.

So, you were either lying or you're laughing in ignorance. Either way, enjoy your L.

[Spurtacular]

To be fair, Spurtacular is a self-admitted racist (although his claim is that racism doesn't exist, which is, factually, provably false).

You're just full-on talking out of your ass, "to be fair".

[Spurtacular]

I just feel that the main reason you're unlikely to get a response is that he doesn't really admits/identifies a problem, or the answer doesn't advance his confirmation bias, so it logically follows that there's nothing to respond to.

Actually, I've said that I've seen this particular debate done a million times over and that I find it trite. Does it excite you?

[Pavlov]

Actually, I've said that I've seen this particular debate done a million times over and that I find it trite. Does it excite you?

He just described what you have done a million times to avoid anything that challenges your bias.

[ElNono]

Can we all agree racism is bad tbh?

No. B/C what is called racism is often BS. I'm still waiting to hear how the Germans are racists.

Verbatim, with links, can't claim I made it up.

I stand by what I posted, readers can draw their own conclusions.

[ElNono]

Feel free to clarify, if I got it wrong

[Spurtacular]

Verbatim, with links, can't claim I made it up.

I stand by what I posted, readers can draw their own conclusions.

Yes, and I was speaking on a subject in which racism was being branded as a term without any actual proof. That's a long leap to say that I said racism doesn't exist. It seems to me that you want to fulfill your own "confirmation bias" to put it generously.

You can stand by your bull all you want; it doesn't mean you don't come off smelling like bull .