Gov. Bill Lee signs Nathan Bedford Forrest Day proclamation, is not considering law change

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  atheist  •  2 years ago  •  112 comments

Gov. Bill Lee signs Nathan Bedford Forrest Day proclamation, is not considering law change
"I signed the bill because the law requires that I do that and I haven’t looked at changing that law," Lee said Thursday.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Gov. Bill Lee has proclaimed Saturday as  Nathan Bedford Forrest  Day in Tennessee, a day of observation to honor the former Confederate general and early Ku Klux Klan leader whose bust is on display in the state Capitol.


Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
[]
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 years ago

This is too funny for words and learning things like this sometimes tempts me to rethink my atheism in that  there may be one god:  Pan--the one of mischief.  All the work of Southern apologists (and you know who you are) who've built up this house of cards that racism, slavery, Jim Crow was all "Democrats" and the Republicans have always been completely blameless and honorable just goes gushing down the drain.  Of course the usual suspects will point out that this practice (which may not be just confined to TN) began with segregationist Dems in the past but then why, if Republicans aren't just the new name for the same old dog, didn't they do away with this monument to slavery and brutality of that past?  We've been hearing forever about Forrest was a Dem and all Dems everywhere are responsible for racism yet there are no tributes to Lee, Forrest or any of the other champions of torture, bondage and death of millions of blacks for hundreds of years in the North, or West, or East.  I can hardly wait for the histrionic denials and counter-attacks from those same people (always the same) to come.  Let the lying, denying, rationalizing, false accusations, lame excuse making  begin once again. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 years ago

Kudos to JR.  I'm honored to come in second.  The story is no less true than it was when JR posted his article.  I see you don't have any response to how it's Republicans in the South (as the reincarnation of racist Southern Dems) who have continued honoring racists, murderers and traitors from their part of the country.  Probably good idea to keep it that way.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4  Dismayed Patriot    2 years ago

What I find rather hilarious is that this is just another example of the Republican party supporting, defending and advocating for worthless confederates and those who actually started the KKK even though at the time they called themselves "Southern Democrats". Well the Democrat party dropped that torch more than half a century ago and have been fighting for equality and the removal of any statues or plaques honoring those who attacked our nation just so they could continue owning other humans as cattle. But the GOP picked up that torch dropped by those Southern Democrats and like racist moths to a flame those who love and revere the confederacy and gnash their teeth at the fact that their ancestors lost the war now flock around that beacon of bigotry.

We saw them in Charlottesville, literally with torches, confederate flags flying along with swastikas and MAGA hats, and now we have a GOP Governor signing into law an actual day of celebration for one of those vile slavery defending confederate bigots. Some claim their defense of the confederate monuments is because it would be, as GOP Governor Bill Lee said "a mistake to whitewash history", but leaving the bust of a confederate general and former leader of the KKK up in front of the Tennessee State capital isn't about remember our past mistakes, we have places like the holocaust museum to remember horrid people and the vile things they did to other humans, we don't need a large bronze bust of a KKK leader in front of a government building just to remember what the confederacy or the KKK did. But that has been the go to defense for many Republicans, all while claiming they aren't the descendants of those former Southern Democrats and had nothing to do with any of that long racist history in the States the GOP is now the majority party.

They'll tell you that somehow all those Dixiecrats must have moved out or died or something, because now the white Christian population in the southern States say they have little to no connection to those Southern Democrats who fought for the confederacy and started the KKK. No, now they're Lincoln praising Republicans who just also still happen to live in those same Southern Democrat bastions and defend the confederate monuments on principle, not because they actually still harbor those same racist beliefs as their confederate ancestors. And they want you to believe they hated President Obama on "principle" as well, not just because having a black man as President went against every indoctrinated prejudiced bone in their bodies. Sure, they were screaming about him being a Kenyan Muslim, but that was all on principle, right? /s

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4    2 years ago
What I find rather hilarious is that this is just another example of the Republican party supporting, defending and advocating for worthless confederates and those who actually started the KKK even though at the time they called themselves "Southern Democrats".

That kind of says it all.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
4.1.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 years ago

Sorry, JR.  I didn't see your earlier article or would have deferred to it. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 years ago

Just to be clear, I do not believe all republicans are confederate loving bigots. It just seems rather obvious that the GOP did pick up that racist torch which attracts all the confederate loving bigots and they know if they were to throw the torch away and completely and unequivocally condemn white supremacy, the KKK, the confederacy and all it stood for, they would likely lose a quarter of their party thus resigning themselves to never winning another election. Since that's simply not an option, I believe many Republicans who don't share those prejudiced views but support the fiscal conservatism of the GOP, hold their noses and stick with the quarter of their party that reeks of racism.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.1.1    2 years ago

no problem

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
4.1.4  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.2    2 years ago
Just to be clear, I do not believe all republicans are confederate loving bigots.

Since the Tea Party took over that party, I can't think of a single remaining R in Congress who hasn't been tainted or cowed by them.  I'll use Lindsey Graham as the most egregious case-in-point.  That one-time best friend of John McCain has become one of the most obsequious, cowardly, dishonest and morality-free POS on two legs.  

I'd be tempted to give Ted Cruz a slow-motion hand clap for calling this out, but I have no doubt he'll soon come out with the inevitable filthy finger-pointing doing at past mostly dead Dems being the real guilty

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4    2 years ago

What I find hilarious are the folks who are so freakin' blind and don't know their history.

Founded in 1865, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s. After 1870, Republican state governments in the South turned to Congress for help, resulting in the passage of three Enforcement Acts, the strongest of which was the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871.

The DEMOCRATS started the KKK - not the whatever name you wanna call them Republicans.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
4.2.1  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2    2 years ago
The DEMOCRATS started the KKK - not the whatever name you wanna call them Republicans.

But Republicans own it all now, 1W.  No way to squirm out of it anymore.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.2.3  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.1    2 years ago

How 'bout showing so PROOF of your accusations - you know - links to articles/reports.  Would really like to see them.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
4.2.4  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.2    2 years ago
When exactly did "now" start?

When Republicans took control of the South.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
4.2.5  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2.3    2 years ago

You're asking me to prove that Republicans now control every level of government in TN?  That's the kind of ridiculous demand for proof of a self-evident fact that, if repeated, is  trolling.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.2.6  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.4    2 years ago

Ohhhh - that "Reconstruction" law thingy that Congress passed in 1868 - 3 years AFTER the Civil War ended.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.2.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2    2 years ago
The DEMOCRATS started the KKK

Apparently you chose not to read my post since I never said any differently. I agree, the Southern Democrats that also had their own Presidential candidate in the 1860 election who supported slavery did in fact found the KKK and pushed racist, bigoted ideologies far into the middle of the 20th century. What you seem to be ignoring is all the evidence that the Democrat party as a whole discarded that prejudiced torch that some of their southern members were carrying when the 1964 civil right act was written by a Democrat President (JFK), then it was passed by a majority of Democrats and signed into law by a Democrat President.

I think the actual 1964 Civil Rights Act vote by party & region tells the real story.

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that had made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

  • Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 145 –9   ( 94% –6%)
  • Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate version:

  • Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
  • Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
  • Northern Democrats: 45 –1   ( 98% –2%)
  • Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

You'll notice 100% of Southern Republicans voted against the civil rights act. I'm sure that impressed many of their constituents.

Let's see how Republican operatives viewed the situation in the South and what tactic they employed to rebuild their minority party at the time into a majority:

Nixon's Republican strategist Kevin Phillips stated his analysis based on studies of ethnic voting:

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats"

"In the 1964 presidential election, Goldwater ran a conservative campaign that broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina). Outside the South, Goldwater's negative vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign."

The facts are clear no matter how far someone wants to stuff their heads up the backside of a prejudiced ex-landlord who paid hundreds of thousands in fines and penalties after being caught refusing to rent to black Americans.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.2.9  1stwarrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.8    2 years ago

100 years difference - one resulted in the Civil War -the other the Civil Rights "fights" which are still ongoing.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.2.10  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.5    2 years ago

So you can't/won't provide proof and would rather attack a pertinent question?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.2.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2.9    2 years ago
100 years difference - one resulted in the Civil War -the other the Civil Rights "fights" which are still ongoing.

I'm not following you. What "one" resulted in the civil war? Do you mean the Southern Democrat party with their Presidential candidate John C. Breckinridge? Or the opposing Northern Democrat party and their candidate Stephen A Douglas? Or perhaps it was the Constitutional Union Party candidate John Bell?

And yes, 100 years does make a difference. Much like how the Democrat party of today looks nothing like the Southern Democrat party of that time, the GOP of today do not resemble, even in the slightest, the party of Lincoln who fought to defeat slavery and prejudice in America.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
4.2.12  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.8    2 years ago
Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act.

 Exploitation of white anger against the civil rights laws and ongoing movement in the South was the key to all of those Republican victories (1968,1972, 1980 and 1984)  just as it remains so today. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
4.2.13  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  1stwarrior @4.2.6    2 years ago

Well, that has fuck-all to do with this topic so, of course, you'd need to throw it in.  But since you did, let's fast forward to the 1876 election--another one that went to the EC which required a shameful amount of horse trading to get Republican Hayes installed as President.  All he had to do to get the necessary EVs was to promise to pull US troops out of the South much earlier than had been planned, thus leaving giving the KKK and its political supporters at every level of government in the South a free hand to begin its 100 year reign of terror over its black citizens.  Another "proud" moment in the history of Republicans and their so-called commitment to civil rights. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.2.14  1stwarrior  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.13    2 years ago

Off topic

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @4.2.13    2 years ago

Psst.. If Tilden had won the election in 1876, reconstruction was over as well. 

Although blaming Republicans for Democrats   "100 year reign of terror" over  black citizens is pretty funny.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.15    2 years ago

Atheist isnt here. 

This seed should be locked in his abscence. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
4.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4    2 years ago

Just look at the first two pitiful rightwing responses to this article...one calling it "old news" (it will be fresh as long as these practices continue under Republican rule) and the other still pretending what's going on now doesn't matter--only what happened 150 years ago.  They simply cannot face the truth.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 years ago

Face it rightwingers.  With David Duke in it, Republican states still honoring the heroes treason, slavery lynchings and murders and Shitbag telling the country that they're "very fine people" the KKK and  now belongs to the Republican party. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6    2 years ago
David Duke in it

David Duke endorsed a Democrat in 2020.   Too funny. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    2 years ago

Which democrat was that?  And who is to say that they sought the scumbag's endorsement?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.2  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    2 years ago
David Duke endorsed a Democrat in 2020.   Too funny.

Who would that be and was it accepted?   It'd be just like Duke, still a Republican, to use an endorsement as a poison pill.  Wow, your desperation reeks. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.3  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    2 years ago

Never mind answering:

Tulsi Gabbard denounces David Duke, rejects his endorsement

Another limp "arrow" from you Sean.  Beyond pathetic.  [ deleted ] you and your buds have done to yourselves over the years and years of false smears and outright lies.  You had to have known those would come back and bite your asses.  If you didn't know that was coming you should have.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.3    2 years ago
  You know this display just shows how much self-inflicted damage you and your buds have done to yourselves over the years and years of false s

you make me laugh.  Now your standard is that the canddite "accepted" Duke's endorsement. When did Trump or any Republican President accept his? 

Face it, Duke's a Democrat. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.5  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.4    2 years ago
Face it, Duke's a Democrat. 

He's a registered Republican who runs for office on  Republican tickets.  He's your boy now, Sean.  Embrace him.  [deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.6  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.3    2 years ago

Lol .... yeah, it's a limp arrow when it skewers you directly through the heart.   /S

Hilarious!!!!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.8  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.4    2 years ago
Now your standard is that the canddite "accepted" Duke's endorsement. When did Trump or any Republican President accept his? 

No, Shitbag got Duke's endorsement but lied and claimed he'd never heard of him.  Tellingly, he never actually rejected the endorsement probably because he knew it would help him.  So, yes rejecting an unsolicited endorsement from someone like Duke is what decent politicians do.  Of course, Shitbag could never possibly measure up to that minimal standard of decency. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.6    2 years ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.10  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.7    2 years ago

You've gone deeper into your pretend-world, Sean.  We can't discuss anything rationally in your usual state but once you've gone to your safe-space it's impossible to discuss anything in any manner.  Please stop commenting until you can compose yourself. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.11  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.5    2 years ago
we wouldn't be able to tell who was who. 

Actually, Duke's might seem more reasonable considering how this convo is going. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.8    2 years ago

Tellingly, he never actually rejected the endorsemen

You lose again:

"David Duke endorsed me? OK, all right. I disavow, OK?"

Donald Trump 2/28/2016

Step up your game son. This is too easy. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
6.1.13  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.4    2 years ago
Face it, Duke's a Democrat.
Born
David Ernest Duke

( 1950-07-01 ) July 1, 1950 (age 69) Tulsa, Oklahoma , U.S.
Political party American Nazi (before 1975) Democratic (1975–1988) 13 years
Populist (1988–1989)
Republican (1989–1999; 2016–present) 13 years and counting...

He was a Nazi before becoming a Democrat, then he became a Republican like so many bigoted Democrats before him who couldn't stand that the Democrat party had become a champion for equal rights. Now he's been a registered Republican longer than he was a Democrat and he ran for the Louisiana House of Representatives and won as a Republican.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.10    2 years ago

I'm not Sean.   Have another doobie, brother.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.13    2 years ago

 Republicans don't endorse Democrats for President. Democrats do.

It's funny to watch. 

Republicans are evil because David Duke supports them! 

Wait? Duke endorsed a Democrat in 2020? 

Well, who Duke supports doesn't matter.  Duke is still a Republican, even if he supports a Democrat!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.16  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.12    2 years ago
"David Duke endorsed me? OK, all right. I disavow, OK?"

First look up the word "disavow" and then take note of how Shitbag finally used it in his off-hand exasperation for having to address the matter again which he'd hoped his earlier lie would have prevented.  Contrast that with the immediate, unequivocal and angry rejection that Gabbard gave.  That's the response of  a decent, straight-talking politician as opposed to the snivelling chickenshit that your Shitbag is. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.17  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.13    2 years ago
Now he's been a registered Republican longer than he was a Democrat and he ran for the Louisiana House of Representatives and won as a Republican.

Wait for it...........

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.19  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.14    2 years ago
I'm not Sean.   Have another doobie, brother.

Same difference. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.16    2 years ago

Keep moving those goalposts...

Just once, argue honestly.  You'd probably be less  angry if you stopped constantly making yourself look foolish in support of a silly political party. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @6.1.19    2 years ago

More doobie brother ... less obstinacy.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1.22  Sparty On  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.18    2 years ago

Duke might not be a moonbat but he sure is a fruitbat ..... always has been IMO.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.23  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.20    2 years ago
Keep moving those goalposts...

Except for the fact that that's both a strawman and your own tactic that's just such a pathetic way to surrender, Sean.  I accept it but it's pitiful. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.24  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.22    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.25  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.21    2 years ago
More doobie brother ... less obstinacy.

More sense, kid.....less BS. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
6.1.26  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.18    2 years ago

This is yet another disgusting anti-semitic* and racist offering from the usual suspect. [deleted] In fact, it's right out of the Goebbel's playbook.  One of his ilk just tried to get away with the same tactic against Tulsi Gabbard.  To accept David Duke's filth as anything to believe much less spread is to declare to be his man or woman.  

*I remind everyone that this commenter [deleted] in the past with comments about George Soros that could have lifted verbatim from the famously and viciously antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  We've heard it: the international Jewish banking scheme  world economic domination---that nasty shit.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.27    2 years ago
Sean is destroying you in the debate,

LOL. See a physician or psychologist about those hallucinations. 

Sean claims David Duke is a Democrat.   That is delusional. 

Before 1975, Duke was a member of the American Nazi party. From 1975–1988 he was a Democrat, then a Populist ‘88-’89, then a Republican ‘89-’99, then a Reform party member ‘99-’01, not sure what party affiliation between ’01 and ‘16, then he became a Republican again in 2016 to run for Senate.

Currently, I believe he’s still a Republican.

David Duke is not a Democrat, but Sean insists in the face of plain fact that he is, and you are impressed with Sean's 'argument.' Yikes. 

You are a moderator BF. You are not supposed to be trying to bamboozle people. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.30  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.12    2 years ago
Washington (CNN) Donald Trump issued a crystal clear disavowal Thursday of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke after stumbling last weekend over a question about the hate group leader on CNN.
"David Duke is a bad person, who I disavowed on numerous occasions over the years," Trump said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I disavowed him. I disavowed the KKK," Trump added. "Do you want me to do it again for the 12th time? I disavowed him in the past, I disavow him now."
The uproar started on Sunday when Trump was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" if he would disavow Duke and other white supremacist groups supporting his campaign.
"Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?" Trump responded.
The next day, Trump blamed a "bad earpiece" during an appearance on NBC's "Today" show.
It took Trump four days to make a clear disavowal of Duke's endorsement. At first he had "amnesia", then a "bad earpiece". jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.31  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.28    2 years ago

Generally, people don't endorse candidates from other parties.  Republicans don't endorse Democrats for President, and Democrats don't endorse Republicans. Is that controversial? Do you wait with baited breath to see if Chuck Schumer is going to endorse a Republican in 2020?  

The only person this really matters to is those who live and die with the guilt by association tactic.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.30    2 years ago
rump four days to make a clear disavowal of Duke's endorsement

No it didn't.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.33  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.32    2 years ago

It did. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.34  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.31    2 years ago
Generally, people don't endorse candidates from other parties.  Republicans don't endorse Democrats for President, and Democrats don't endorse Republicans. Is that controversial? Do you wait with baited breath to see if Chuck Schumer is going to endorse a Republican in 2020?   The only person this really matters to is those who live and die with the guilt by association tactic. 

Ridiculous. Any number of prominent Republicans openly disavowed the Republican candidate in 2016. 

You have taken the low road a lot since Trump took office but claiming Duke is a Democrat is low even for you. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Guide
6.1.35  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    2 years ago
And who is to say that they sought the scumbag's endorsement

As usual you totally miss the point.

The point is that your scumbag agrees with your democratic values.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.35    2 years ago

WTF are you talking about?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Guide
6.1.37  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.36    2 years ago
WTF are you talking about?

I'm sorry is this easier for you to understand?

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.38  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.34    2 years ago

ny number of prominent Republicans openly disavowed the Republican candidate in 2016

Saying I won't vote for X is not the same as actively endorsing Y.

You are how you vote.  If you endorse a Democrat for President , publicly support a Democrat for President, you pretty much are a democrat. Maybe an independent. But not a Republican. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.1.39  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.33    2 years ago

It did. 

Only if you dishonestly ignore the other times he did both before and after the Tapper interview. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.40  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.38    2 years ago

BF might be impressed with your nonsense about David Duke, but I'm not. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
6.1.41  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.30    2 years ago

He didn't know anything about Duke like he knew nothing of Wikileaks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.1.41    2 years ago

Damn, he should have been watching the news like his predecessor did to find stuff out!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Guide
7  seeder  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    2 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Participates
7.1  PJ  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7    2 years ago

Well this is disappointing.  Sorry to see you go but I understand how you've reached your limit.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7    2 years ago

I couldn't see your comment as it was removed.  

It does appear though that the lunatics have taken over the asylum here.

I'd hate to see you go though.  There are so few rational and truthful and sane folks left around here 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Guide
7.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @7    2 years ago

Don't go away mad, You bring so much to the table in discussions. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  KDMichigan @7.4    2 years ago

LOL!!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Hallux
Nowhere Man
XXJefferson51
Freefaller


60 visitors