This is the usual rigthwing m.o.--make big claims and then claim it's up to others to prove them wrong. They don't have to put up any facts at all. Then, when someone does show what BS it all was, the wingers just continue to pump out the same BS time and time again.
It's easier to hate and blame others than it is read and learn.
:lol:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/227177-confederate-flag-56.html#post1064758781
I made a statement that YOU challenged in which YOU asked me to clarify something that I wasn't even talking about.
I think we are done here... buh-bye.
You say you're not a WS and then refer us to a book that's all about that.
There is a quote function here at DP. A magical thing that will help identify who it is that you are talking to. Try it...
Actually what I did was ASK YOU A QUESTION. A question you were impotent to answer.
If you want to cut and run -that is up to you. Citing the same post that you took exception to the first time WITHOUT providing the explanation as to what was wrong with it with any evidence that you claim was there is you NOT proving your claims.
Why then were you impotent to use that same function to back up your claims about me? You like to lecture others but fail to live up to your own standards. Why is that?
Like I said, most of my historical research is in heaven now. Sorry to burst some bubbles.
It is not cutting and running... it is telling you that I was not referring to slavery but you seem to think that I was and keep compounding your error. Really silly actually...
What is even more silly is seeing this digitusmedius try to piggy back you on this fruitless endeavor. If you are unclear then ask for clarification instead... make sense?
When? You and I have been having a back and forth since you came in and created this ridiculous tangent in which you are burying yourself in folly...
This entire discussion about the Confederate flag is inseparable with the very idea of slavery.
I did ask you for a clarification with my question. One that you were impotent to answer with any evidence support your claim. Instead you were far more interested in putting on the robe of the judge and pronouncing your victory.
Again with the self serving pronouncements devoid of any evidence to support them.
The only victory I have is one handed to me by you... you asked for clarification about an issue I was not referrencing and I informed you of that. ..
Like I told you before, my sources are in heaven.
Which is a euphemism of saying that slavery was the cause of the war. Absent slavery there would have been no secession and no conflict.
no - and you have yet to do so. All you did was pronounce my failure without any evidence of it accompanied by analysis and explanation as why it failed. And you still have not provided it despite many posts asking you to do so.
Until the Civil Right Act 1964 - blacks were still almost slaves. They were free - but with very limited means.
I hope you have a nice day too...
Oh, hell no. Never would they read actual source documents. It would destroy every silly myth and lie they've taken so long and put so much effort into creating.
Playing dodgeball, eh? Okay, I'll put it this way: In general, do you believe as a class are people, caucasians (i.e., of northern and central European ethnicity) smarter than people of all the other ethnicities?
You mean granddaddy was your only source for your England and France fable? Sheez, this is sooo much fun.
Funny you should mention that particular act. It was two months after that became law that the consummate segregationist and white supremacist in the US Senate, Strom Thurmond, switched his party membership from democratic to republican that was when the floodgates opened wide and the republican party became the haven of white supremacists that it is today.
Playing dodgeball, eh? Okay, I'll put it this way: In general, do you believe as a class are people, caucasians (i.e., of northern and central European ethnicity) smarter than people of all the other ethnicities?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?