“What do you mean ‘Democrats are the real racists'”?
How often has someone asked you this question? I get it all the time from younger people– 30 and below especially. I used to recite the many instances of institutionalized racism Democrats authored and enforced to keep blacks slaves, then sharecroppers and segregated when it suited whites. I recite all the common talking points of Democrats voting against voting rights during the civil rights movement, rescinding voting rights 2 decades after Republicans gave blacks voting rights following the Civil War, the KKK being created by an elected Democrat as an enforcement vehicle against blacks and Republicans, etc…
The eyes of my audience remain blank and unimpressed. These people have been raised to believe the Democrats are blacks’ best friend in government and Republicans are hostile to blacks. While most know Democrats in the south fought to continue slavery, they believe that the racists in the south became Republicans and those opposed to racism became Democrats. They don’t know how or why such a thing happened, but they know it did. The fact that blacks vote for the Democrats over 90% of the time reinforces this belief.
This level of misunderstanding must be overcome through a rather lengthy explanation:
Democrats use fear as a tool very effectively. Southern whites were convinced that if blacks could own guns they would immediately shoot every white person they saw. If a black man could look at and speak to a white woman without being beaten or hung, they would rape every white woman they saw. If blacks drank from the same water fountain the water would carry disease. If blacks ate from the same food counter, the food would make whites sick. As crazy as this may sound, people believed it. (If your listener(s) have an incredulous look on their face ask them if they would drink water or eat food in close proximity to a rat, they’ll get the idea).
Then Republicans forced desegregation in the south causing the myths about blacks to begin fading.
Suddenly the main tool of control was lost to the Democrats. They could no longer sell them selves as the party of the white man and win elections. The Democrats went to the class warfare that served them well in the north and west. The Democrats sold themselves as the protector of the working man and the poor, fighting to stop the “repression” of the rich.
Blacks, however, knew better. They supported Republicans in large numbers with their newly restored voting rights. The “blue” South started turning purple. The Democrats needed to re-establish their political dominance in the South. Southern whites were learning that their fears of blacks were largely unfounded. With the Democrats main tool of control fading away, Southern whites began to align themselves politically based on moral values and basic economic philosophy. Southerners were and are more rural by nature which causes people to be more self-reliant. They are less likely to be in a union, less likely to be an immigrant or first generation natural born American, more patriotic, and more impressed by history than change. (e.g.- a Southerner will recommend a hundred year old restaurant first wheras a New Yorker will recommend the newest “hot” restaurant first) Over time, whites in the South found the message of the GOP to resonate more than the Democrats. And this is how Southern whites became Republicans.
Simultaneously, blacks were finding them selves realigning toward the Democrats. The racial rhetoric started to die down, and the desire to “dance with the one who brung them” faded. The social programs ushered in by the “Great Society” were attractive to the under educated, low income, black community in the South. Their was heavy immigration of blacks from the south to the north, looking for work and opportunity. When they got factory jobs they became union members and their desires from government changed. They also found “free” housing, welfare payments, food stamps, and racial quotas in hiring attractive.
So a century after the Republicans and Democrats went to war, the decendants of the soldiers and the slaves changed sides. And a half century after that, the current crop of immigrants and first generation natural born Americans are unaware of the change, assuming that current alignments are rooted in racial history rather than evolving moral and economic values.
Conservatives must educate younger and immigrant voters about the truth of why some groups vote as they do. We must no longer cede the racial high ground to the historic party of racism. Most people understand the allure of government money in the black community and why they vote Democrat but they do not understand how racist whites in the South became Republicans without bringing their racist beliefs with them.
Well said. And Dem’s have continued to enslave blacks all the way up to today, by encouraging them to NOT work, to not earn and rewarding them for doing exactly the opposite of what our country used to be known for… independence, hard work and stubbornness while reaching for focused goals.
To summarize, white people are inherently hardworking and morally upright, while black people are inherently lazy and more likely to want handouts than white people. Hard to believe your message doesn’t resonate in the black community. African Americans are overwhelmingly Democrats because of the Democratic and the Republican parties of today, not the ones in 1860 or 1950. Has it occurred to you that you yourself, and your attitudes, are parts of that equation?
Just a guess, but I imagine your condescending assumptions that blacks are largely ignorant of history and addicted to handouts are two of many reasons why they want nothing to do with your brand of “politics”.
@Scott in Oklahoma:
“Enslave”?!? Scott, you talk about blacks like they’re all members of a homogeneous clan of weak-willed idiots who are easily duped and led around by those sneaky Democrats. That’s quite a broad brush you wield. Is that what you really think? Do you realize how ridiculous you and your like-minded friends sound when you whine about the “reverse racism” of blacks and Liberals while voicing opinions like these in 2014?
You can always tell when wingnuts are reaching when they try to blame the left for what is so obviously commonplace amongst themselves. Want proof?
Terror From the Right: Plots, Conspiracies and Racist Rampages Since Oklahoma City
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right
Nice try, though!
@Tom: @This one: Thanks for validating the point of the post with non-insightful, reactive and canned responses. Both of you have a vested interest in keeping said fallacies alive. Maturity will undoubtedly offer a different perspective. I suggest you stop erecting stumbling blocks for your fellows and go do something productive for society. The hate and ignorance is getting stale.
Tom – what are you, sixteen and in the 90’s? Get with the times. You’re view is childish and not worth engaging
This one – you’re a paid/volunteer troll. Quit, and stop making the country dumber and poorer.
With luck, the Dems propaganda machine will be overcome by common sense and actual goodwill, not ad-style catch words meant to foment hate and division.
Nice try though.
Here’s to real hope and real change…
Community Organizer here, former.
Here’s an argument I had when I trained inner-city youth in the public sector. I would correct the youth I oversaw on their vocabulary and grammar to the abhor of the project manager.
Management wanted me to cease but my counter was that outside the inner-city and city-gov’t agencies, you are expected to speak proper. I joked that our students couldn’t pass an ESL exam outside the city.
I was validated a few years later in the private sector as two former students (black and white) interviewed with my black manager and he commented separately on his decline, “too ghetto”.
The program definitely empowered our youths. But they weren’t and it was discouraged to coach them in the proper skill-set to empower themselves outside their ’empowerment zone’.
so now we know the DEMOCRATS FOOL THE BLACK PEOPLE WITH STORY OF DOOMSDAY,
AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS,
AN THEY STILL DO TO THIS DAY, HOW CAN THE BLACK PEOPLE BELIEVE IT?
WITH THE BIRD IN THE DEMOCTATIC SEAT, THEY MUST HAVE BEEN BOUGHT
AND GET THE UNIONS TO GIVE THEM JOBS, SO TO LURE THEM IN,
BUT HOW COME THE BLACK ARE COMMING TO THE REPUBLICAN AND LIKING IT BETTER, NOW,
BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEARCH HISTORY AND FOUND THEIR ANCESTORS WHERE REPUBLICANS,
@This one: “You can always tell when wingnuts”
You can always tell a liberal progressive troll by his ad hominem attacks.
what is so obviously commonplace amongst themselves
Outside of islam, progressivism – the cult of fair (trademarked) – has killed the most.
Soviet, Red China, Cuba, Zimbabwe.
Terror and double-standards from the left doesn’t end there.
Ambassador Stevens, rest his soul.
Al Sharpton, “You punk faggot.”
Hi. 🙂
@Nathan Blue:
Unfortunately for Tom and This one, I’m relatively sure they have reached their zenith.
What they don’t understand is that they think what they’re doing is productive. Yes, it’ll prevent the black from ever having the equality they desire by nature.
@Tom:
“Enslave”?!? Scott, you talk about blacks like they’re all members of a homogeneous clan of weak-willed idiots”
That’s how the Democrat Party treats people.
Do you realize how ridiculous you and your like-minded friends sound when you whine about the “reverse racism”
New Century Foundation studies Federal crime
(h/t examiner)
FACTS ARE RACIST I KNOW
@mossomo:
LOL. I doubt that. Perhaps “facts”, as you call your collection of grievances, only serve to justify racism, in some people’s minds.
@Nathan Blue:
I guess it’s my lucky day then. I’ve had my fair share of stale right wing platitudes for one day.
@Tom:
LoL. What’s my collection of grievance? I don’t recall providing any in my reply. I did provide some facts. Which you ignored.
A fact is not a grievance but rather a truth of observation. Observation and fact /= racism.
@mossomo:
I notice that while you claim to love facts, you have no facts to dispute the flawed premise of this post. You’re obviously quite comfortable with a faulty premise if it supports what you want to believe. Or perhaps you -and the OP – are unaware of the historical record. The entire “whites in the South became Republicans without bringing their racist beliefs with them” claim, while comforting to some, runs in the face of reality. As the Democratic Party leadership began embracing Civil Rights, whites in the South became Republicans because the GOP intentionally appealed to racism against blacks. It was called the Southern Strategy. Nixon’s own political strategist, the man largely credited with popularizing it, openly discussed it in 1970
And perhaps you or the OP can comment on the fact that when Southern whites stopped voting Democrat and migrated to the Republican party, quite a few stopped off to vote for George Wallace, who carried most of the South in 1968 on an openly segregationist platform. So who was voting for Wallace? Blacks?
Tom
It was the Democrats voting for Wallace.
Like the Democrats that vote for Harry Reid after “complimenting” then Senator Obama for not having “a discernible negro dialect”. Of course he is only the leader of the Senate Democrats and his beliefs of course are in no way representative of the people who voted to have him represent them from Nevada and his peers in the Senate.
Do you know why Bill Clinton’ personal assistant and best friends were black? Because he is a white Democrat and the only women he can be trusted not to try and have sex with are black women. Democrats are the same racist, white supremacists they always were. Their methods have changed, using planned parenthood to minimize minority population growth, preventing educational choices and options outside of pathetically under performing public schools, using public housing and subsidized housing to keep blacks “in their place”. Same segregation, different method. Democrats went from the “stick” of lynching or tar and feathering to the “carrot” of free or subsidized housing, food, medical care, education, etc… to keep themselves in a position of superiority and control. But make no mistake, they still consider themselves superior to minorities and they mean to control the behavior of minorities.
Does this mean all Democrats are knowingly racist? No. Would most Democrats state they are “superior” to others? No. The overt signs of Democrat racism has morphed into “compassion for the less fortunate”. The concept that blacks or Latinos cannot be held to an identical standard as whites and Asians is inherently racist. Even if they are well-meaning, they diminish the humanity of the “helped”.
When Joe Biden makes an off-the-cuff remark during a speech that Republicans want to put blacks “back in chains”, he is insulting the knowledge of blacks by assuming they don’t know it was the Democrats who SECEDED FROM OUR NATION AND FOUGHT A WAR to keep them in chains.
I understand Democrats consider Republicans racist for treating blacks as equals, and believing results come from effort more so than racial background. To not “level the playing field” with social policy seems racist to people who don’t believe in the inherent equality of the races and the ability of any given individual to accomplish based on effort and innate talent.
@Tom: You said:
Then later you turn to the ’60s to lamely attempt to tie a temporary election strategy by one candidate to an entire swath of the American voting public.
Who’s painting with a broad brush now?
Not being surprised that any liberal (Tom) would be math challenged, let’s take a look at his term “most” which indicates a strong majority (like 8 out of 10, or 15 0ut of 20 would be most):
There were 11 states considered “Southern”, Wallace took five of them, Nixon five, for Wallace taking less than half of the Southern States because West Virginia, although considered a “Southern” state was not part of the original 11 Confederate States of America. Neither Wallace, nor Nixon took Texas as it went for Humphrey.
Tom also has to ignore the actions of FDR, through the ward boss system, that forced blacks to join the Democratic Party during the Great Depression. Great research has been done on that movement, not only by Amity Shales but Walter Williams and Shelby Steele, as well. If you were a black fleeing the Depression in the agrarian South, to the promise of a job with the CCC or other government job programs, you were required to not only register to vote as a Democrat, you were required to pay into the political coffers and work the elections. Which is something Obama has not learned; when you give a man a job who faces starvation, you also get his loyalty. Blacks voted in overwhelming numbers for Franklin Roosevelt, although Roosevelt, himself, was a bit of a racist.
Time after time, the GOP has proven to be the least racist of both parties, even nominating, and electing the first minority to the office of Vice President.
But Tom, with the aid of the NYSlimes (which has been run by Fabian Socialists for two generations), will present us with revisionist history. That’s what liberals do.
@blowhard:
And then what happened to them? Did they all go back to the Democratic Party, the party of racism (according to you), four years later? To use Alabama as an example, in 1968 here is the breakdown among the three major candidates:
66% for Wallace
19% for Humphrey
14% for Nixon
The results in 1972 would suggest they overwhelmingly moved onto the Republican Party:
72% for Nixon
25% for McGovern
And this pattern is consistent across the South. Perhaps you’re lumping the pro-segregationists Wallace voters in with the other whites who magically stopped being racist when they moved to the GOP?
No, I didn’t know that. Did you come up with all these theories yourself?
First of all, I don’t know where you’re getting the impression that Democrats consider Republicans racists. I don’t know anyone who thinks all Republicans are racists. That’s just your victim complex talking. But I can definitely tell you that your racial theories might raise an eyebrow or two. Those “younger people” you attempt to educate with this stuff might respectfully smile and nod in your presence, but the expiration date on this stuff is a couple decades old, and believe me, they know that. You might want to listen to them for a change.
@retire05:
Which goes exactly to my point: the Southern White migrated to the GOP (with some stopping off on the more extreme Wallace for one election cycle) at the exact same time the GOP began pandering to segregationist rhetoric and the Democrats began supporting Civil Rights legislation. Coincidence?
If you want to argue it had nothing to do with racial policy, be my guest, but that’s not what the OP is saying. From what I can gather, he’s saying millions of Southern whites magically became non-racists by virtue of leaving the Democratic party: “racist whites in the South became Republicans without bringing their racist beliefs with them”. Maybe you should have a word with the OP if you take issue with that characterization.
Tom:
You quoted “If you want to argue it had nothing to do with racial policy, be my guest, but that’s not what the OP is saying. From what I can gather, he’s saying millions of Southern whites magically became non-racists by virtue of leaving the Democratic party: “racist whites in the South became Republicans without bringing their racist beliefs with them”. Maybe you should have a word with the OP if you take issue with that characterization.”
What I explained in my post was that “Democrats use fear as a tool very effectively. Southern whites were convinced that if blacks could own guns they would immediately shoot every white person they saw. If a black man could look at and speak to a white woman without being beaten or hung, they would rape every white woman they saw. If blacks drank from the same water fountain the water would carry disease. If blacks ate from the same food counter, the food would make whites sick. As crazy as this may sound, people believed it. (If your listener(s) have an incredulous look on their face ask them if they would drink water or eat food in close proximity to a rat, they’ll get the idea).”
Then Republicans forced desegregation in the south causing the myths about blacks to begin fading.”
My point was that white’s who had historically voted for the Democrats because the Democrats supported and kept white racial superiority over blacks in place legally and socially, no longer enjoyed legal superiority and began to vote on issues other than racial segregation. They began to vote on social issues and the more socially conservative beliefs of the Republican party were more inline with Southern beliefs.
The change from Southern whites from voting based on racism to voting on social issues (and not race) seems very abrupt– too abrupt to many. But consider that when society decides that an injustice must be remedied millions of people can change their view very quickly. Look at gay marriage. Three years ago every state (over 30, I believe) that voted on gay marriage had voted it down. This includes very liberal states like California. Now, just 3 years later it seems inevitable that gay marriage will be universally recognized in the US. Once the fear that gays subsided, their “right” to get married becomes passe. My point was once blacks and whites were not segregated, the value of segregation to Southern whites was lost and they voted for different reasons/issues.
I was not saying “saying millions of Southern whites magically became non-racists by virtue of leaving the Democratic”. I was saying that white Southerners became less racist making the Democrat party– whose main rallying point for white support was segregation and white supremacy– less attractive to white voters. The Republicans were/are more in line with Southern religious values, fiscal conservatism, respect for history, etc… and this is what attracted white Southern voters to the Republican party, not the promise of a new home for their white supremacist beliefs.
IS HARRY REID THE SAME DESPICABLE IGNORANT
WHO SAID THE TEA PARTY ARE TERRORIST?
YES HE IS,
@blowhard:
That’s a fair point. The level of nuance in this comment seems missing to me in your original post. That being said, while I can see your point about social conservatism being a draw for many, I don’t think you can overlook an opposition to Civil Rights and desegregation as part of the equation. Typically, conservatives cede this point, but they assign the opposition to things other than racism, such as an opposition to the Federal Government becoming involved in a “local matter”. I could find much to question with that view as well, but I think it’s within the realm of a debatable point. To be honest, my biggest issue with your post is your belief that African Americans were lured to the Democratic Party with hand-outs. You seem to have conveniently left out desegregation and the passage of Civil Rights legislation as a principle reasons. Obviously, the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 was voted on strictly along regional lines, with non-Southern Republicans and Democrats both supporting it, but with Democrats largely splitting their own party to pass it, and Southern whites moving to the GOP subsequently, it makes perfect sense that blacks would largely align themselves with the Democratic party moving forward.
@Tom:
See Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the patronage of ward bosses who were left to run the New Deal on a local level, including the hiring of blacks for agencies like CCC.
Then how do you explain a majority of blacks voting for Democrat presidents since 1936, almost 30 years prior to the Civil Rights Act?
Tom:
“You seem to have conveniently left out desegregation and the passage of Civil Rights legislation as a principle reasons. Obviously, the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 was voted on strictly along regional lines, with Republicans and Democrats both supporting it in the North, but with Northern Democrats largely splitting their own party to pass it, and Southern whites moving to the GOP subsequently, it makes perfect sense that blacks would largely align themselves with the Democratic party moving forward.”
I mentioned segregation and the role it played in popularizing Democrats among whites during it’s existence and that it waned from importance after being ended by the Republicans.
To say the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported fully by the Republicans, and partially by the Democrats made “perfect sense that blacks would largely align themselves with the Democrat(s)” makes no sense… perfect or otherwise.
The driving issues in the post-segregation South were not based on race the way they were before desegregation.
Your point that Republicans are against civil rights is based on a leftist view of civil rights (“I don’t think you can overlook an opposition to Civil Rights and desegregation as part of the equation. Typically, conservatives cede this point”)– that inequality must be instituted to “level the playing field” for those who have been discriminated against previously. Republicans believe in civil rights. They just don’t believe in favoring one group over another to try and fix past wrongs. The recipients of Democrat civil rights– housing subsidies, hiring or enrollment quotas, hiring and enrollment preferences, government contracting preferences, etc…–like the special treatment and additional job security and income that it represents. Republican civil rights policy does not promote any group over another and therefore does not get support from any demographic group. If you can have a referee that gives equal treatment to both teams or a ref that favors your team (and winning is everything) which would you choose?
@retire05:
So are you insinuating that supporting FDR and the New Deal is the equivalent of wanting a hand-out? Would supporting Truman after he desegregated the military also be related to hand outs? Strange how so many white people voted for them too. The fact is that black party affiliation with the Democratic party hovered in the 40s and 50s %s until 1964 when it jumped 24% in four years to 82% (and went to 92% four years later). Try explaining those massive jumps outside of identification of Civil Rights legislation with the Democratic party.
It’s funny how people like you want to have it both ways. You insist on rewriting history that your hands were clean of racism way back when, while throwing out racist theories to explain the very history you’re questioning: we weren’t racist, it was just that blacks are so into hand outs, that they went with the racists. You don’t even see the irony, do you?
@blowhard:
No, that’s not my point. You insist on talking in terms of Democrats and Republicans because you think it’s cute to tell contemporary Democrats that they are “the party of racism”. Unfortunately for you, parties and party membership change all the time. As I mentioned above, almost no congressman or senator of either party in the South voted for the Civil Rights Acts, while the overwhelming majority outside of the South did vote for them. So it’s more accurate to say that the main opponents of Civil Rights legislation were not Republicans or Democrats, but white Southerners. Arguing that opposition among Southern whites to Civil Rights was all at the behest of the Democratic party the same year that blacks and non-Southern liberal whites were coalescing into something that looks demographically like the modern Democratic party seems quite ridiculous. The Democratic party lost the South because of Civil Rights.
@Tom:
I said:
To which you responded:
Number one, I never mentioned “party affiliation”, now did I? So you choose to ignore the question and put your own spin on it so that you don’t have to answer the question. Party affiliation, and actual voting records, are not the same thing. I may identify as a Republican but may vote for a Democrat (which I have done) or I may identify as a Democrat and vote for the Republican, as certain Democrats have.
Care to try again, answering the question and not trying to weasel out of it?
@retire05:
You and your pathetic diversions. Have it your way. It makes no difference. The black Democratic presidential vote went from 68% to 94% from 1960 to 1964. I’m sure you have a really good explanation for that.
@retire05: 17
Myself, being deep South born and raised, does not consider West Virginia to be southern. In fact they only exist because they DID NOT want to be southern. So any article or ‘set of facts’ that refer to West Virginia as southern have to be totally bogus because if the person putting out the facts are not aware of the fact that WV is not southern, then they can hardly be ‘aware’ at all.
According to the ”Tiger Mom,” who insists on straight A’s from all of her children, Jewish, Indian, Chinese, Iranian, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians, Cuban exiles and Mormons have three qualities that set them apart…..
Notice all races are included?
Middle Easterners, Asians, Africans, Hispanics and even European whites (the Mormons).
I think if you look at welfare rolls you also find all races.
I also think that the destruction of personal incentive (no grades, everybody gets trophies, no background checks for jobs, high minimum wage for menial work, over-taxation of business profit, higher taxes on ”the rich,” and so on) has created a larger pool of those who want to ride in the wagon as opposed to those who are willing to pull the wagon.
Tiger mom (an Asian woman married to a Jew) is encouraging straight A’s through love and positive reinforcement.
Our society is discouraging straight A’s as if getting them is acting white.
And acting white is bad.
@Tom: Good thing I’m not right wing, but thanks for the bigoted prejudice. I’d quit while you’re behind, and read a book while your at it.
Not a blog, magazine, or paper.
A book…
@retire05:
Wow, I can’t believe I almost missed that definition of the word “most”. You must have forgotten, Retire, how you wasted a bunch of my time and others’ by refusing to concede over and over that the word “most” in a binary set indicates a simple majority, and now it’s “a strong majority”. Just a little window into your honesty.
@Nathan Blue:
Thanks, Nathan, for another great contribution to the discussion.
@Tom:
Only in your liberal mind. I would warrant that if you took a poll right here at FA, and ask the question:
What do you consider the term “most” to represent? A) any number over 50% or B) a solid majority.
I refuse to concede to a falsehood (your forte) just because you want to stomp your feet.
This is true, but once again it is a case of you cherry-picking data to support your argument. So, since you are using 68% in 1964 as your bottom number, what was the percentage of black voters that voted Democrat in the presidential elections of 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948 and 1952?
I know you know the answers and that is why you are spinning like the Dervish to avoid answering my question.
The problem with you liberals/progressives is that you think you are so smart, and your tactics so brilliant, that no one knows how to dispel your spin.
most 1) existing in the greatest quantity or degree 2 the majority of, nearly all (most people think so)
The Oxford American Dictionary of Current English, Oxford Press, 1999
@Tom:
Tom there is no majority in a binary set. there are only two possibilities and that is zero or one. zero would be defined as ‘none’ and one would be defined as ‘all’. neither of those two possibilities are ‘most’.
So, now lets move on to the next level 1-10 the number 6 would be a simple majority, not ‘most’. then the number seven is one more than a simple majority, again not Most. the numbers 8 – 9 would constitute ‘most’ of the numbers. I see no problem with even the simplest mind understanding this. No, wait. Now I see the problem.
@retire05:
I’m not your research assistant. Unlike yourself, I have a job, which I’ve neglected far too much for this nonsense. Feel free to research the data and let us all know. You’ve done a a great job so far avoiding the obvious, so let’s see where you go from here.
Nanny G
i like that one and it”s a tool for thought process,
thank you for that,
was it CONFUSUS? NO,
BYE
Tom
their party change but they are still racist and those
who change from them to join the Republicans, are still called , UNCLE TOM,
and the TEA PARTY CALLED TERRORIST, middle earth, evil, all of the other,
THEY ARE A PARTY OF US ALONE KNOW,AND THE REST ARE IGNORANT, of no value, good for welfare,
NOT WORTHY TO BE TOLD THEIR PLAN, BUT ONLY EXECUTE IT AND FOLLOW THE LEADER
EVEN IF IT KILL YOU, OR RUIN YOU, OR ENSLAVE YOU, IF YOU REBEL,
yes good thing you’re not rightwing, you would not fit
one minute, the right wing are the smart thinkers and,
have a class which you miss,
@Tom:
Thank God. And if I were to have a research assistant, I would hire someone honest and intelligent. You fail on both counts.
Don’t need to work. Always managed my money with smarts for that very purpose.
Don’t need to. Already knew the answers when I asked you the questions.
And since you claim to have a job, tell us, Tom, in liberal world, what is the politically correct term for burger flipper, because that is about as much as your intellect will allow.
Ummmm, seems to me you’re the one avoiding the obvious (like answering my questions). Perhaps you should learn not to criticize others while looking at your own reflection.
BLOWHARD and FRIENDS Tom has single handedly made fools of y’all.
You wonder why young people don’t buy your revisionist history?? Read closely his posts. Nuf said
To be clear. White Dem self proclaimed racist Senators Thurmond Ala. and Helms NC became Repubs. and their White Dem racist supporters swiched over with them and continued to elect these racists under the Repub. banner.. This was the pattern throughout the Deep South from 64 CRA passage till completion by late 70’s.
Enjoy the Big Game tonight
@Richard Wheeler:
If you believe that Tom has made a fool of anyone except himself, then you are the one he made a fool of.
@retire05: Tom consistently makes you look bad o5. It’s a given.
@Richard Wheeler:
Yeah, that’s why his record of answering questions is so stellar.
But he does appeal to the lowest common denominator intellectually, I suppose.
@retire05: You aren’t the best at answering questions.
EX– my questions re your stop losses and market strategies–no response
@Tom: You’re welcome. Now go read book…
That’s it…
Get up from the computer…stop harassing people you don’t know…
That’s it.
Feel better?
I suggest a quick Hemingway read or All Creatures Great and Small. It will take you out of the B.S. partisan subculture of American division for awhile, and perhaps offer an existence beyond quibbling “debates” found on anonymous internet boards. Perhaps you’ll then have something to contribute.
@Richard Wheeler:
Pot, meet kettle.
I don’t read every one of the posts here at FA. So could have missed it. Because you always acted before like you were some market guru (being a mortgage broker, or what ever the hell you were) so it seems you should have all the answers.
@Nathan Blue:
Hemmingway used words with more than four letters. You’re assuming Tom has reached that level.
@Richard Wheeler:
Who do you have winning, Rich?
Richard Wheeler
don”t think that doing a hit and run here as usual, is made for you ,
you will always be the loser,
and no HE TOM DID NOT, MAKE FUN OF THE CONSERVATIVES
IT”S THEM WHO GAVE HIM A GOOD LESSON,
WE CANNOT LET HIM BLOW UP LIKE THE FROG INFLATE TOO MUCH , AND SQUICH ALL OVER,
PLEASE NOT HERE AT
THIS FLOPPING ACES POST,
irk irk, disgusting end you want for TOM,