My 2014 GOP Dream Team

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

[Niemeyerite]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

[Donerail]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

I know that, and it's not something that makes me want to support the Democrats, but there are a variety of other factors that are more important than that. Why should I base my vote off of stuff done by people who are dead or otherwise out of power rather than other issues?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

[Niemeyerite]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

[Niemeyerite]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

OMG, you're dumber than I thought. Do you really think that Hollings and Byrd were segregationist by 2001? LoL LoL LoL. And I'm not sure Hollings was a segregationist (Byrd ceirtainly was), but Hollings supported Jackson in 1988 (!!) and Byrd supported Obama in 2008 (!!!). That's my evidence.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

OMG, you're dumber than I thought. Do you really think that Hollings and Byrd were segregationist by 2001? LoL LoL LoL. And I'm not sure Hollings was a segregationist (Byrd ceirtainly was), but Hollings supported Jackson in 1988 (!!) and Byrd supported Obama in 2008 (!!!). That's my evidence.

They were still racist, and the only reason they supported black presidential candidates was because they were Democrats.

[Kitteh]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

OMG, you're dumber than I thought. Do you really think that Hollings and Byrd were segregationist by 2001? LoL LoL LoL. And I'm not sure Hollings was a segregationist (Byrd ceirtainly was), but Hollings supported Jackson in 1988 (!!) and Byrd supported Obama in 2008 (!!!). That's my evidence.

They were still racist, and the only reason they supported black presidential candidates was because they were Democrats.

Jackson

[Zioneer]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

OMG, you're dumber than I thought. Do you really think that Hollings and Byrd were segregationist by 2001? LoL LoL LoL. And I'm not sure Hollings was a segregationist (Byrd ceirtainly was), but Hollings supported Jackson in 1988 (!!) and Byrd supported Obama in 2008 (!!!). That's my evidence.

They were still racist, and the only reason they supported black presidential candidates was because they were Democrats.

Psst, Jackson never actually became the Democratic nominee.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

OMG, you're dumber than I thought. Do you really think that Hollings and Byrd were segregationist by 2001? LoL LoL LoL. And I'm not sure Hollings was a segregationist (Byrd ceirtainly was), but Hollings supported Jackson in 1988 (!!) and Byrd supported Obama in 2008 (!!!). That's my evidence.

They were still racist, and the only reason they supported black presidential candidates was because they were Democrats.

Hollings could have supported Michael Dukakis. He could have supported Gary Hart. He could have supported Al Gore, or Dick Gephardt, or Joe Biden. But no, he supported the black guy.

[Niemeyerite]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

OMG, you're dumber than I thought. Do you really think that Hollings and Byrd were segregationist by 2001? LoL LoL LoL. And I'm not sure Hollings was a segregationist (Byrd ceirtainly was), but Hollings supported Jackson in 1988 (!!) and Byrd supported Obama in 2008 (!!!). That's my evidence.

They were still racist, and the only reason they supported black presidential candidates was because they were Democrats.

Hollings could have supported Michael Dukakis. He could have supported Gary Hart. He could have supported Al Gore, or Dick Gephardt, or Joe Biden. But no, he supported the black guy.

But he's a racist !!!111!!!!!!!Elev1n!!1!!1!!

Not to say Byrd supported Obama over Clinton. Clinton the white. You see.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Why are we still arguing with Oldies?  He's an idiot and a hack who will make any excuse he can for Republicans while simultaneously calling Democrats racist whenever possible.

I've never said that Democrats of today are racist.  But their history of racism is long and well-documented.  An Republicans have certainly had their civil rights failings, just as Democrats have had pleny of civil rights triumphs.  But the fact remains thay it was largely Republicans who fought for civil rights and Democrats who fought against it.

Nobody's arguing that that's not true. The real question (that you've failed to answer) is why does it matter?

Nobody on here is arguing that it's not true, but plenty of Democrat leaders have tried to pin it all on Republicans.  And as for why it matters: if you knew that Democrats supported slavery and segregation, would that make you want to support the Democratic Party, no matter how long ago it was?  If Republicans had done those things, no matter how long ago it was and how many of those people were dead, the mainstream media would hawk about it 24/7 as a reason not to vote Republican.

Those republicans would be democrats today.

And where is your evidence?  Last I checked most of them were dead or never switched parties, even if a few of them did.

If Strom Thurmond became a republican, why not?

Where's your evidence they'd still be republicans?

Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican, but most of the segregationists stayed Democrats for life (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings).

That's because they changed their positions. If not, they'd have became republicans, too. Byrd supported Obama, in fact.

Where is your evidence?  I have plenty.  Robert Byrd used the N-word at least twice in a Fox News interview in 2001.  And in 1993, Fritz Hollings talked about African potentates coming up to Geneva and "getting a good square meal" instead of "eating each other."

OMG, you're dumber than I thought. Do you really think that Hollings and Byrd were segregationist by 2001? LoL LoL LoL. And I'm not sure Hollings was a segregationist (Byrd ceirtainly was), but Hollings supported Jackson in 1988 (!!) and Byrd supported Obama in 2008 (!!!). That's my evidence.

They were still racist, and the only reason they supported black presidential candidates was because they were Democrats.

Hollings could have supported Michael Dukakis. He could have supported Gary Hart. He could have supported Al Gore, or Dick Gephardt, or Joe Biden. But no, he supported the black guy.

But he's a racist !!!111!!!!!!!Elev1n!!1!!1!!

Not to say Byrd supported Obama over Clinton. Clinton the white. You see.

Then why were they on record within the past 20 years making racist statements like the ones I posted?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

[Niemeyerite]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Yeah, you're veeeeeeeeery dumb. Can you read the first sentences?:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think Hollings supported Jackson because every other candidate was jew, or that Byrd supported Obama because Clinton was too pro-Israel? Do you?

Thurmond was waaay more racist than any of those 2, and that's why he became a republican, the party of white people (well, used to be when he died).

[Kitteh]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson is also an anti-Semite who has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.  Senator Hollings has also referred to Mexicans as "wetbacks" and a Jewish colleague as"the Senator from B'nai B'rith."

[Donerail]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

[Niemeyerite]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

So in other words, if you're racist against a certain group of people, you're more likely to admire or respect someone from that group if they're racist against you?

[Niemeyerite]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

Man man man, you can admit that you were wrong sometimes.
Byrd and Hollings are aracist for you but Hoekstra isn't. You always think that republicans are good people and democrats are the bad people... You're like a kid (maybe you ARE a kid). And even when you know that what you're saying is a piece of sh**t, you keep saying the same sh**t instead of recognizing you were wrong. And that's because you are a dumb. Because silly people think they're always right.


Oh, and I have two questions for you:

1) Are you sure you have Asperger syndrome? Isn't it another kind of syndrome?
2) Why did Storm Thurmond became a republican?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

Man man man, you can admit that you were wrong sometimes.
Byrd and Hollings are aracist for you but Hoekstra isn't. You always think that republicans are good people and democrats are the bad people... You're like a kid (maybe you ARE a kid). And even when you know that what you're saying is a piece of sh**t, you keep saying the same sh**t instead of recognizing you were wrong. And that's because you are a dumb. Because silly people think they're always right.


Oh, and I have two questions for you:

1) Are you sure you have Asperger syndrome? Isn't it another kind of syndrome?
2) Why did Storm Thurmond became a republican?

1. I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was four years old.
2. Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican because of race, but most of the segregationists never switched parties, and most of them that did had reasons that had nothing to do with race. 
3. What I've said is backed up by historical evidence.  I realize that there are bad Republicans and good Democrats, but those people seem to be in the minority, in my opinion.

[Niemeyerite]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

Man man man, you can admit that you were wrong sometimes.
Byrd and Hollings are aracist for you but Hoekstra isn't. You always think that republicans are good people and democrats are the bad people... You're like a kid (maybe you ARE a kid). And even when you know that what you're saying is a piece of sh**t, you keep saying the same sh**t instead of recognizing you were wrong. And that's because you are a dumb. Because silly people think they're always right.


Oh, and I have two questions for you:

1) Are you sure you have Asperger syndrome? Isn't it another kind of syndrome?
2) Why did Storm Thurmond became a republican?

1. I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was four years old.
2. Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican because of race, but most of the segregationists never switched parties, and most of them that did had reasons that had nothing to do with race. 
3. What I've said is backed up by historical evidence.  I realize that there are bad Republicans and good Democrats, but those people seem to be in the minority, in my opinion.

You provethat not every Aspy is intelligent

BTW, segregationists never switched parties because they died/had no time/voted republican no matter what was their registration, but their sons (and daughters, but specially sons) are republican people now. So, what's you point?
What historical evidence? Pat Buchanan and Washington Times being your main source means that what you have is fictional evidence.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Also, consider this:

http://www.newser.com/story/148669/david-duke-endorses-black-politician.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/06/david-duke-endorses-charles-barron-126973.html

Supporting a guy because you are both anti-semites is nothing like endorsing a civil rights leader like Jesse Jackson. Again, Hollings had a ton of choices in the 88 primary, most of which would have been better for him in a self-interested, political mindset. But he chose to endorse not just a black guy, but a black guy who had made his career advocating for civil rights for black people and is just about as strongly opposed to segregation and such laws as a person can possibly be.

Jesse Jackson has publicly admitted to spitting in white people's food.

So what you're saying, is that a guy who's racist against black people, endorsed a guy who's racist against white people, so the racism cancels out and the Democrats aren't racist?

Yes, he is THAT dumb.

No.  They were both racist, albeit against different raes.  Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

Man man man, you can admit that you were wrong sometimes.
Byrd and Hollings are aracist for you but Hoekstra isn't. You always think that republicans are good people and democrats are the bad people... You're like a kid (maybe you ARE a kid). And even when you know that what you're saying is a piece of sh**t, you keep saying the same sh**t instead of recognizing you were wrong. And that's because you are a dumb. Because silly people think they're always right.


Oh, and I have two questions for you:

1) Are you sure you have Asperger syndrome? Isn't it another kind of syndrome?
2) Why did Storm Thurmond became a republican?

1. I was diagnosed with Asperger's when I was four years old.
2. Strom Thurmond may have become a Republican because of race, but most of the segregationists never switched parties, and most of them that did had reasons that had nothing to do with race. 
3. What I've said is backed up by historical evidence.  I realize that there are bad Republicans and good Democrats, but those people seem to be in the minority, in my opinion.

You provethat not every Aspy is intelligent

BTW, segregationists never switched parties because they died/had no time/voted republican no matter what was their registration, but their sons (and daughters, but specially sons) are republican people now. So, what's you point?
What historical evidence? Pat Buchanan and Washington Times being your main source means that what you have is fictional evidence.

I've done a lot of reading on this stuff.  Herman Talmadge was a Democrat in 1980; Sam Ervin was a Democrat during Watergate, and Al Gore Sr. (who filibustered against the 1964 CRA) was the father of Al Gore.  Hardly an example of a segregationist's son being a Republican.   And as for my intelligence, I have had three semesters in college, and I had a 4.0 GPA for two of them.