Van hits pedestrians near Finsbury Park Mosque in London

[Meghan54]

Gosh, a "progressive" hurling personal insults as a debate argument? Who would have ever expected such a new and novel concept!



...........I'm stunned you actually owned the statement and defend it. That the people who ended slavery should still be punished for somehow, somehow being the "perfectors" of slavery.
And you say I'm illogical?

WTF are you talking about.....except maybe the people who ended slavery are NOT the current Republican party by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, I get it.....the "liberals" who were in the South and perpetuated slavery were en mass shipped out of the South after 1964 and replaced with "conservatives" from somewhere else, hence the shift in the South from Democrat to Republican.

If that's your point of your last statements quoted above....you stoopid.

 

[bshole]

...........I'm stunned you actually owned the statement and defend it. That the people who ended slavery should still be punished for somehow, somehow being the "perfectors" of slavery.
And you say I'm illogical?

This many years later, the descendants of those who ended slavery have intermingled with the descendants of those who fought for slavery and with the descendants of slaves as well. In any event, it is physically impossible to punish or reward humans who have been dead for over a century. Could you be a little more clear about what you are getting at?

 

[xthetenth]

Gosh, a "progressive" hurling personal insults as a debate argument? Who would have ever expected such a new and novel concept!

Wow, when you replace someone's argument with ellipses they no longer have an argument. Amazing! I tried it with yours but all there was in this post was a pair of non sequiturs that had literally nothing to do with the arguments being made.

So, tone argument aside, there is literally nothing here. There is no argument other than that I garnished my argument with insults and that somehow means there was no argument in the first place. I'm going to assume that means that you have no counterargument against the rest of my post, and that you are implicitly conceding the point. Just because I'm kind and courteous, I'll walk you through what you have conceded through what I have no choice but to assume is an inability to respond in case you'd like to give it another try.

You are responding to a post saying that there is a difference between people who have political goals that stand on their own merits laughing at their opposition's incoherent counterarguments and people who think the existence of counterarguments from a given sector is a viable substitute for their goals having merits. Do you contend that there is no difference between the two? Do you seek to claim that the side you're attempting to defend isn't actually using dem tears as a proxy for sound policy and that they in fact have a clear philosophy of what they seek and why that you can restate in your own words?

Furthermore, Blue Max is a sad tosser and Carthage should be destroyed. (This was literally the first thing I typed, just to see if he'd try the same trick when directly confronted. It has no bearing on the rest of my argument.)

...........I'm stunned you actually owned the statement and defend it. That the people who ended slavery should still be punished for somehow, somehow being the "perfectors" of slavery.
And you say I'm illogical?

Okay, this is separate because you actually quoted my words. It's a strange stylistic choice because you didn't respond to my words, but I give points for effort.

First off, when I say something is different in kind, it's a distinct bloody thing, not a culmination of a prior trend as would be implied by "perfectors". It's common practice to not make your strawmen blatantly contradicted by the quote they're two lines below but hey at least it's your words and not a link to a video of a dude ranting on youtube. Baby steps.

The rest of the post revolves around the "people who ended slavery". I'm sorry, I didn't realize you served with the Union Army or with the West Africa Squadron. In that case, you have my deepest gratitude.

Oh no wait, you're trying to hitch a ride on them by the accident of similar melatonin content. That's a really limp argument, and I think you could use a hand. Those chaps in the Congo sure have a lot they could loan you, and since you've appointed yourself the inheritor of all the actions of white people, that's on you.

If I were to start punching you in the face, would you owe me thanks for stopping when I decided it was no longer convenient? No. As the self-appointed inheritor of whiteness, that's what you're proposing here.

 

[Victorian Gray]

This many years later, the descendants of those who ended slavery have intermingled with the descendants of those who fought for slavery and with the descendants of slaves as well. In any event, it is physically impossible to punish or reward humans who have been dead for over a century. Could you be a little more clear about what you are getting at?

He read some words on a website and he parrots them back. He has no ideas or understanding of his own.

 

[xthetenth]

He read some words on a website and he parrots them back. He has no ideas or understanding of his own.

He literally posted a counterargument to something other than what I said. It's very weird, and worse it wasn't even a good counterargument even when he got to choose what he was arguing against.

I wonder how many hour long rant videos he's watching to drown his shame.

 

[Zaap]

WTF are you talking about.....except maybe the people who ended slavery are NOT the current Republican party by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, I get it.....the "liberals" who were in the South and perpetuated slavery were en mass shipped out of the South after 1964 and replaced with "conservatives" from somewhere else, hence the shift in the South from Democrat to Republican.

If that's your point of your last statements quoted above....you stoopid.

Dims will forever remain stuck on stupid about this. No matter how you wish to revise history, Dims didn't free the slaves. The Dim party was largely AWOL for much of the original Civil Rights legislation. The south didn't switch from Dem to Rep in 1964, it in fact elected Carter in 1976 and retained a majority of Dim governors. Your party was full of suck in the 1860's right through to the 1960's and beyond. Nixon and Reagan won by landslides in the entire country, whereas Dims ran southern govenors as part of a *gasp* southern strategy. You don't get to claim the R party's historic record, or whitewash the Dim party's shitty history. Those are just a facts your ilk can't deal with.

 

[brycejones]

Dims will forever remain stuck on stupid about this. No matter how you wish to revise history, Dims didn't free the slaves. The Dim party was largely AWOL for much of the original Civil Rights legislation. The south didn't switch from Dem to Rep in 1964, it in fact elected Carter in 1976 and retained a majority of Dim governors. Your party was full of suck in the 1860's right through to the 1960's and beyond. Nixon and Reagan won by landslides in the entire country, whereas Dims ran southern govenors as part of a *gasp* southern strategy. You don't get to claim the R party's historic record, or whitewash the Dim party's shitty history. Those are just a facts your ilk can't deal with.

Derp

 

[nickqt]

Dims will forever remain stuck on stupid about this. No matter how you wish to revise history, Dims didn't free the slaves. The Dim party was largely AWOL for much of the original Civil Rights legislation. The south didn't switch from Dem to Rep in 1964, it in fact elected Carter in 1976 and retained a majority of Dim governors. Your party was full of suck in the 1860's right through to the 1960's and beyond. Nixon and Reagan won by landslides in the entire country, whereas Dims ran southern govenors as part of a *gasp* southern strategy. You don't get to claim the R party's historic record, or whitewash the Dim party's shitty history. Those are just a facts your ilk can't deal with.

Northerners freed the slaves by fighting southerners in the Civil War, and it was northerners who signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

It was southerners who fought against freeing the slaves in the Civil War, and it was southerners who were against the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Although even that is a simplified version.

You can continue trotting out your proven-wrong talking points over and over and over, but there's a good reason, genius, why the south went from solid Democrat in the 1940s to solid Republican, beginning in the 1940s (Truman desegregated the Army, champ), accelerated after 1964 (Johnson personally whipped the CRA through Congress, genius), to what it is today: southerners who are proud REPUBLICANS who WAVE THE CONFEDERATE FLAG.

The SOUTH is a very specific region with very specific views on race, and they side with whichever party dogwhistles, or Trump-ets racist rhetoric. It was monolithically Democratic when the Democratic party was racist, and, uh, it's monolithically Republican now.

But go ahead and spit out your tired talking points, repeat the word Dims over and over like a schizophrenic unable to use the correct language to describe objective reality, and keep saying stupid shit, out loud, in public.

 

[Meghan54]

1. I was a registered Republican before the best part of you soaked into the mattress twixt your mom's legs. But the Republicans made a huge shift when Goldwater defeated the moderate/progressive Repub. Rockefeller in the primaries, which essentially spelled the end of progressive Republicans influencing anything within the Repub. party.

2. True, conservatives in the south stuck on trying to maintain some semblance of slavery in modern clothes via separate but equal. For the most part, these conservatives were Democrat, although by '64 conservative Republicans were showing up. Sen. John Tower of TX is one such appearance. And conservative Republicans from the south voted unanimously against the Act.

3. Ever wonder why southern Republicans almost overwhelmingly voted against the Civil Rights Act of '64? Just like Goldwater was initially for the Act before he was against it....it was the addition of public accommodations, incl businesses---commerce clause. Couldn't have good white folks being forced to be in the same store as the colored. And this fight continues to today.

4. No, the Democrat party wasn't AWOL on the '64 Civil Rights Act. Hell, Kennedy put forth the bill in '63. But the Republicans were against provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations.

5. The previous Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 were just voting rights acts. True, southern conservatives were aghast that anyone would allow blacks to vote. That was and is a sad bit of history. But to compare the '64 Act to what went previously is disingenuous at best.

6. Ummmm....Reagan was a governor, too, so the rest of your shit is just that....shit.

7. Christian conservatives rule in the south....have since it was little more than colonies until today, outside a few exceptions.

8. Ever wonder why Goldwater in '64 only carried 6 states? Arizona, his home state, and SC, GA, AL, MS, LA...the deep south confederate states. No surprise, actually, given the demonization christian conservatives have been plying in relation to blacks in the south. Southern conservatives had used religion as their justification for slavery, Jim Crow, and damned near every other discriminatory policy that existed prior to '64.

9. Ever wonder why 100% of southern Republicans voted against the '64 Act? Nope, you never did. If one actually looks at how the voting in both Houses broke down by region, the south voted against it overwhelmingly, both Democrat and Republican. The rest of the nation....overwhelmingly voted for the Act, both Democrat and Republican.

Dims will forever remain stuck on stupid about this. No matter how you wish to revise history, Dims didn't free the slaves. The Dim party was largely AWOL for much of the original Civil Rights legislation. The south didn't switch from Dem to Rep in 1964, it in fact elected Carter in 1976 and retained a majority of Dim governors. Your party was full of suck in the 1860's right through to the 1960's and beyond. Nixon and Reagan won by landslides in the entire country, whereas Dims ran southern govenors as part of a *gasp* southern strategy. You don't get to claim the R party's historic record, or whitewash the Dim party's shitty history. Those are just a facts your ilk can't deal with.

 

[Victorian Gray]

1. I was a registered Republican before the best part of you soaked into the mattress twixt your mom's legs. But the Republicans made a huge shift when Goldwater defeated the moderate/progressive Repub. Rockefeller in the primaries, which essentially spelled the end of progressive Republicans influencing anything within the Repub. party.

2. True, conservatives in the south stuck on trying to maintain some semblance of slavery in modern clothes via separate but equal. For the most part, these conservatives were Democrat, although by '64 conservative Republicans were showing up. Sen. John Tower of TX is one such appearance. And conservative Republicans from the south voted unanimously against the Act.

3. Ever wonder why southern Republicans almost overwhelmingly voted against the Civil Rights Act of '64? Just like Goldwater was initially for the Act before he was against it....it was the addition of public accommodations, incl businesses---commerce clause. Couldn't have good white folks being forced to be in the same store as the colored. And this fight continues to today.

4. No, the Democrat party wasn't AWOL on the '64 Civil Rights Act. Hell, Kennedy put forth the bill in '63. But the Republicans were against provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations.

5. The previous Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 were just voting rights acts. True, southern conservatives were aghast that anyone would allow blacks to vote. That was and is a sad bit of history. But to compare the '64 Act to what went previously is disingenuous at best.

6. Ummmm....Reagan was a governor, too, so the rest of your shit is just that....shit.

7. Christian conservatives rule in the south....have since it was little more than colonies until today, outside a few exceptions.

8. Ever wonder why Goldwater in '64 only carried 6 states? Arizona, his home state, and SC, GA, AL, MS, LA...the deep south confederate states. No surprise, actually, given the demonization christian conservatives have been plying in relation to blacks in the south. Southern conservatives had used religion as their justification for slavery, Jim Crow, and damned near every other discriminatory policy that existed prior to '64.

9. Ever wonder why 100% of southern Republicans voted against the '64 Act? Nope, you never did. If one actually looks at how the voting in both Houses broke down by region, the south voted against it overwhelmingly, both Democrat and Republican. The rest of the nation....overwhelmingly voted for the Act, both Democrat and Republican.

Fake history.

 

[buckshot24]

1. I was a registered Republican before the best part of you soaked into the mattress twixt your mom's legs. But the Republicans made a huge shift when Goldwater defeated the moderate/progressive Repub. Rockefeller in the primaries, which essentially spelled the end of progressive Republicans influencing anything within the Repub. party.

2. True, conservatives in the south stuck on trying to maintain some semblance of slavery in modern clothes via separate but equal. For the most part, these conservatives were Democrat, although by '64 conservative Republicans were showing up. Sen. John Tower of TX is one such appearance. And conservative Republicans from the south voted unanimously against the Act.

3. Ever wonder why southern Republicans almost overwhelmingly voted against the Civil Rights Act of '64? Just like Goldwater was initially for the Act before he was against it....it was the addition of public accommodations, incl businesses---commerce clause. Couldn't have good white folks being forced to be in the same store as the colored. And this fight continues to today.

4. No, the Democrat party wasn't AWOL on the '64 Civil Rights Act. Hell, Kennedy put forth the bill in '63. But the Republicans were against provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations.

5. The previous Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 were just voting rights acts. True, southern conservatives were aghast that anyone would allow blacks to vote. That was and is a sad bit of history. But to compare the '64 Act to what went previously is disingenuous at best.

6. Ummmm....Reagan was a governor, too, so the rest of your shit is just that....shit.

7. Christian conservatives rule in the south....have since it was little more than colonies until today, outside a few exceptions.

8. Ever wonder why Goldwater in '64 only carried 6 states? Arizona, his home state, and SC, GA, AL, MS, LA...the deep south confederate states. No surprise, actually, given the demonization christian conservatives have been plying in relation to blacks in the south. Southern conservatives had used religion as their justification for slavery, Jim Crow, and damned near every other discriminatory policy that existed prior to '64.

9. Ever wonder why 100% of southern Republicans voted against the '64 Act? Nope, you never did. If one actually looks at how the voting in both Houses broke down by region, the south voted against it overwhelmingly, both Democrat and Republican. The rest of the nation....overwhelmingly voted for the Act, both Democrat and Republican.

You must be like 80. I'll be nicer to you in the future.

 

[xthetenth]

Dims will forever remain stuck on stupid about this. No matter how you wish to revise history, Dims didn't free the slaves. The Dim party was largely AWOL for much of the original Civil Rights legislation. The south didn't switch from Dem to Rep in 1964, it in fact elected Carter in 1976 and retained a majority of Dim governors. Your party was full of suck in the 1860's right through to the 1960's and beyond. Nixon and Reagan won by landslides in the entire country, whereas Dims ran southern govenors as part of a *gasp* southern strategy. You don't get to claim the R party's historic record, or whitewash the Dim party's shitty history. Those are just a facts your ilk can't deal with.

It sure is amazing when all the people who fly the battle flag from the slavers' revolt don't even stop the paragraph before trying to help themselves to the legacy of the people who fought and died against that cause just because they have literally subsumed their identity into the Republican party and think the same must apply to people who oppose them.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Why are all the degenerates so completely unaware of things like the Southern Strategy and the total 180-degree U-turn between the parties that happened in the 60s? I thought this was a matter of common political knowledge, and very low-hanging fruit at that...

 

[xthetenth]

Why are all the degenerates so completely unaware of things like the Southern Strategy and the total 180-degree U-turn between the parties that happened in the 60s? I thought this was a matter of common political knowledge, and very low-hanging fruit at that...

They don't want to know. Who would want to stand in front of the mirror and tell themselves that they're part of a coalition assembled against the order proposed by the Civil Rights Act where minorities would benefit from the social safety net and the inheritors to the legacy that dates back to the terrorists that won Reconstruction?

 

[Victorian Gray]

And Osborne is officially charged

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-related-murder-over-finsbury-park-van-attack

 

[agent00f]

Why are all the degenerates so completely unaware of things like the Southern Strategy and the total 180-degree U-turn between the parties that happened in the 60s? I thought this was a matter of common political knowledge, and very low-hanging fruit at that...

They don't want to know. Who would want to stand in front of the mirror and tell themselves that they're part of a coalition assembled against the order proposed by the Civil Rights Act where minorities would benefit from the social safety net and the inheritors to the legacy that dates back to the terrorists that won Reconstruction?

Actually, pieces of shit like @Zaap are more than aware of the facts, having been informed of them on a regular basis. Degenerates just don't care about facts, which they're proud to demonstrate over and over again, and precisely why they're degenerates.

The really sad thing here is that Zaap types aren't even hardcore racists themselves, they're just in it to help out their race realist political partners who'll vote for tax cuts for the wealthy. Imagine going to that special place in hell and they didn't even get to commit the sin.