Text 14670, 338 rader
Skriven 2014-04-27 12:18:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BILL MCGARRITY
Ärende: Re: Gosnell
===================
On 04-26-14, BILL MCGARRITY said to TIM RICHARDSON:

-=> TIM RICHARDSON wrote to BILL MCGARRITY <=-


-=> TIM RICHARDSON wrote to BILL MCGARRITY <=-



TR> Hey...here's something right up your alley!


TR> You know that democrat KKK leader who just shot up some Jewish centers
TR> in Kansas City? You know...Anthony Weiner's buddy?


BM>Oh, now he's a democrat?? Well, he was in 1984 but the Dems threw him out
BM>on his ass.  In 1986 he ran for the NC GOP Senate seat.  So what's your
BM>point?


TR> And he didn't do any better there, either. So what's YOUR point?


BM>My point was to expose you and your rhetoric.


TR> The only thing you've been able to `expose' is your own ass! Your pants
TR> fell down again!

BM>Oh, because you didn't include he was also a republican and I called you
BM>out on it is my fault?  Being you knew he was both, why didn't you say
BM>that to begin with?  That's the basis of your pomposity when you deal with
BM>issues.  You leave out very important parts to fit your needs. Again,


This is a hoot!


BM>ASSume your own failings.


TR> He went to the *democrats* first! Not
TR> surprising, since the *democrats* were the ones who held them as
TR> slaves, and after the Civil War, held them down as best they could. It
TR> was the democrats who started the KKK to begin with! And all those
TR> big-name racists in the south were *democrats*.


BM>LOL.... you sound like a kid who just got caught with his hands in the
BM>cookie jar... screaming, but Roy took one first!!


And you come across as a leftist trying to gin up a `nothing sandwich'. While
ignoring that all the racist types are *democrats*.


Nice try at a distraction. But the fact is that its *your* bunch who are not
only racist, but are the worst enemies the blacks had in this country, and
still are.


TR> And `you' appear to be attempting to gin up a `the sky is falling' type
TR> of controversy that doesn't exist!


BM>Sure it did.. got a rise out of you.


There wasn't any `rise'. What you got is a `nothing' sandwich and you're
looking for some mayo.


BM>You speak of things that happened over 100 years ago.


TR> A hundred years ago? Much of the real violence and murdering of black
TR> civil rights demonstrators, and the standing in the doorways of schools
TR> by white democrats to block integration, took place right in my
TR> lifetime!


BM>I was talking about slaves. Actually I should have said 150 years ago.  My
BM>apologies.


So was I. In fact....most of them still are slaves. To the government! They
live on the government's plantation now, instead of the plantations they lived
on back before the civil war.


The only diffeence between now and then is, on the government's plantation
they don't have to pick cotton. Just vote the right way.


BM>How about we talk
BM>about from 1944 on when the Klan reorganized after the depression.


TR> Yeah...lets.


TR> Lets see....in the early 1940's an obscure individual named Bob Byrd,
TR> who was a butcher at the time, recruited 150 individuals, charged each
TR> of them $13 (a ten dollar joining fee, and three dollars for the robes
TR> and hood), and the `grand dragon' for that area came down there to Crab
TR> Orchard, and officially organized the chapter.


TR> That `official' was Joel Baskin, a democrat!


TR> At his urging, Byrd went into politics....as a democrat!


TR> Byrd had other titles as well; "kleagle" (recruiter), exalted cyclops
TR> (top officer in the local kaln unit).


TR> Or Strom Thurmond. Thurmond was a staunch democrat who led some of the
TR> most infamous acts of white suppression of the modern day civil rights
TR> movement in the history of the movement.


BM>Didn't Strom convert to the Republican party in 1964 due to the Civil
BM>Rights Act?


Yeah...they always do something like that to `clean up their act'.  Sort of
like a certain republican from Pennsylvania jumping from republican to
democrat because the republicans finally got sick of his wishy-washy ways of
voting in Congress...and then jumping from democrat to independent when even
the democrats wouldn't put up with him!


Thurmond saw which side of his bread the butter was going to be on, and acted
accordingly.


TR> George Wallace. Wallace was a democrat who was one of the most racist,
TR> obstructionist foes of equal rights for blacks.


BM>Didn't Wallace also leave the Dems when he ran for president all over
BM>desegragation? You see, when the Dems saw the error of their ways, the GOP
BM>gladly stepped up to the plate and resume the racism with a smile on their
BM>face.  Party lines have changed and you can't dispute that.



BM>Case in point, look at the 1954 GOP platform.  If anyone in the GOP was to
BM>stroll that out before GOP masses in today's world, they'd most likely
BM>shoot them.

BM>Shall
BM>we discuss their ties to the neo-nazi (I know, I've just opened a can of
BM>worms here... but who cares) and then in the 1970's when right wing
BM>extremists decided to jump into the insanity.


TR> If you're talking about the southern democrats who fought the civil
TR> rights movement, you have a point. Surely `segregating' blacks by the
TR> southern democrat racists, could be compared to the Nazis seperating
TR> the Jews from `arians'.


BM>I was talking about the 70's not during the 60's when you were absolutley
BM>correct.


So...you admit the democrats know when its time to `go with the wind', and
change their `angle of attack'.


BM>Wasn't a southern democrat the one who signed the civil rights act.


TR> If you're talking about Lyndon Johnson...Johnson was an
TR> easily-manipulated politician who `went with the flow'. He `tested the
TR> wind' before he ever did anything of a significant nature. He signed it
TR> because he pretty much HAD to, or else give the democrat party a
TR> permanent black eye!


BM>Oh?  I disagree about him being easily manupulated when it came to civil
BM>rights.  He played the game very well.


He was another one who `went with the flow'. He knew when it was time to jump
ship.


BM>Vietnam is a different story. He
BM>was a typical politician when it came to filling his pockets with Bell
BM>Helicopter profits.


BM>But I will admit Howard Smith
BM>was a racist SOB and he bit the bullet after he knew his rediculous views
BM>would make him a laughing stock.


TR> Or how about Richard Cohen? That overtly heavy-handed revisionist of
TR> history?


BM>The Washington Post writer?


TR> Is he where you get your info on this?


TR> You know...I looked up Thurmond and Byrd...and a few others...and you
TR> really have to DIG DEEP to get the information tht they were
TR> *democrtats* who strongly resisted the civil rights movement.


BM>I never mentioned either of those two but I'm sure I could dig up others
BM>who were as much of an ass as those two.  The funny thing is that Thurmond
BM>saw the rift in the Democratic party and saw the GOP picking up the racist
BM>flag so he ran with it.


Its been tried over the years to paint the GOP as racist, and many deep-seated
racist types switching from the democrat party to the republican side is
pointed to as having changed the GOP into racists. Thats just as false as any
other would-be revision of history the democrat leftists have attempted.


BM>You see, things change Tim.  You have to stop living in the past and
BM>thinking what was should be the status quo today.


TR> Yeah....won't do for people like you to be reminded who the REAL badies
TR> were in regard to civil rights, would it?


BM>Oh I agree there were badies, but who's picked up the slack from those
BM>"bad Dems"?


BM>Even your darling out in Vegas is loosing his appeal and the GOP is
BM>running away from him like he was radioactive.  To top it all, Hannity is
BM>leading the retreat.  Funny how he praised Bloomsburg Seach and Frisk
BM>policy saying no one is above the law and the police need this measure to
BM>enforce the LAW.  Guess that same policy doesn't apply to some rancher who
BM>owes over a million bucks because he doesn't beleive in the Federal
BM>Government.  Go back and do some research on the Whiskey Rebellion Tim.
BM>See what Bundy's hero George Washington did back then. He was one of the
BM>Founding Fathers was he not?  Those "good ole' boys" are lucky. All that
BM>was needed was one of those drunken idiots fire a shot in the air and
BM>they'd be burying those so called "patriots".


TR> If you're refering to Bundy, I'm not `for' nor `against' him. I think
TR> there's a lot more to that than most of the nation just reading
TR> newspapers or catching it on news broadcasts, are aware of.


BM>Oh, that he's been fighting paying his land grazing fees because he
BM>doesn't believe in the Federal Government anymore?  That every court in
BM>the last 20 years has ruled against him?


Would those be `federal' courts?


BM>That he had a few 100 armed
BM>"cowboys" who were screaming and getting in the face of the BLM officers
BM>when they were peforming their jobs?


I saw a lot of video footage on that standoff, and I didn't see any "cowboys"
do any screaming or getting in anyone's face!


I *DID* see BLM people do a `take-down' of one of Bundy's sons without that
individual having done anything of a violent or threatening nature.


And I *DID* see there were a few verbal exchanges between the people who
arrived to stand with the Bundy family, and BLM or whatever federal LEO's were
present.


BM>Those same cowboys who had snipers
BM>sitting on overpasses looking down on the confrontation?


Oh and lets not forget the *snipers* the federal LEO's had on THEIR side. Not
to mention the MILLIONS of rounds the various federal agencies have been
amassing for a couple of years, now. Nor let us not forget that the government
rangers who were rounding up Bundy's cattle were heavily armed.


Not only that...as everyone know...federal LEO's are typically armed with
fully automatic weapons, which the civilian group would NOT have been. And,
federal LEO's also have both light and heavy machine guns available to them,
which the civilians do not. Not to mention that the federal LEO's have pretty
much an endless supply of logistics available to them, where the civilians
were limited to the area they occupied during the standoff, whatever
`logistics' they brought with them at the time, and the actual number of their
people present at the scene of the swtandoff.


The federal LEO's could replace casualties limitlessly, the Bundy group could
not. Had any violence involving a fire-fight erupted, the area would have
quickly been closed off to any access to more outsiders, and all routes of re
-supply to the Bundy group heavily guarded and sealed off.


BMThat ALL of those
BM>belonging to the tea party and the FauxEntertainment people were praising
BM>him for breaking the law then as soon as he exposed his racist views, they
BM>all ran and stuck their heads in the sand. That there was precidence for
BM>the Federal Government to go in a squash this so called "freedom rally"?
BM>Again, another one hit wonder sent to slaughter by the GOP's mouthpiece.


To me that seperated the men from the boys so to speak.


That very turning away from Bundy, without first waiting to see `the other
shoe drop' on the story (which it did), revealed much about some people on the
conservative side.


It might interest you to know that I was already against some of them for
reasons that had nothing whatever to do with the Bundy incident.


Personally, I'm hoping that a few of them never get much higher in national
politics than they already are.


---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 bbs.docsnetservices.com (1:123/140)