Arizona New World Order. "Sir are your papers in order"

OPTIONAL777 · Apr 25, 2010

"Yes, there are numerous black tea party supporters"

Just post the photos from Teagagger conventions where the numerous black supporters can be seen...

"No, "the south" didn't support segregation.

http://www.kawvalley.k12.ks.us/brown_v_board/segregation.htm

"
Yes, you "amended" (ie flip flopped) to will."

You consider amending a flip flop?

Whatever...then amending the Constitution is flip flopping...

Mistakes are amended, flip flop is altering a position to the opposite value.

You really must feel beating down if you are picking at nits...

Quote from phenomena:

Racial slurs from a democrat, nothing new there...

No, no specific geographical area brought civil rights to blacks. Politics aren't divided into geographical areas, they are divided by people who share views. There are members of both political parties in geographical area both then and now. There were dems and reps in both the north and the south, and still are.

There is not a "north party" and "south party". There is a republican party and democrat party, and the both have numerous members from each region. The members of the democrat party in the north and the south supported segregation, and the republicans of that party (in both the north and the south) supported abolishing it. Those are the facts, sorry if you don't like them, but you can't change them.

Yes, there are numerous black tea party supporters, and even activists. Sorry about your ignorance on that topic. You look at a few pictures and make a judgment, not unlike someone who looks at a ghetto, crack infested area full of blacks and decides that blacks are naturally prone to such behavior, interesting...

No, "the south" didn't support segregation, democrats (northern ones too) did, and republicans (southern ones too) did not. Those are the facts, cry about them if you want, but they wont change. And yes, political party is a lot more meaningful than geography as far as politics is concerned. You seem to think that geography is somehow more important than political party with regard to politics. Talk about a logical faux pas :eek:

Yes, you "amended" (ie flip flopped) to will.

"Cracker"? "Red ass southerner"? Not surprising that a democrat thinks that such racist terminology is acceptable.

Spydertrader · Apr 25, 2010

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

However, they fought on which side in the Civil War?

Neither.

States didn't fight the Civil War. People did.

In Ohio, people fought on both sides of the conflict. Occassionally, one son fought for the North, while another son fought on the side of the South. I'd imagine New York had a similar experience with its citizens.

Judging by the NYC Anti-Draft riots of 1863, I'd say some weren't pleased to be fighting at all.

- Spydertrader

AMT4SWA · Apr 25, 2010

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Apart from a rinse and regurgitation cycle of Alex Jones, that is...

Dude, get some new lines because this one is making me yawn.

OPTIONAL777 · Apr 25, 2010

"States didn't fight the Civil War. People did."

So you want to be difficult?

Fine.

And did the majority of the people of the the states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland choose to fight for the Union, or did they fight for the scum sucking Dixie loving Confederates?

Did the states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland side with the scum sucking slave states of the South?

Quote from Spydertrader:

Neither.

States didn't fight the Civil War. People did.

In Ohio, people fought on both sides of the conflict. Occassionally, one son fought for the North, while another son fought on the side of the South. I'd imagine New York had a similar experience with its citizens.

Judging by the NYC Anti-Draft riots of 1863, I'd say some weren't pleased to be fighting at all.

- Spydertrader

OPTIONAL777 · Apr 25, 2010

Why get new lines when the old ones are still true?

Quote from AMT4SWA:

Dude, get some new lines because this one is making me yawn.

Spydertrader · Apr 25, 2010

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

And did the majority of the people of the the states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland choose to fight for the Union, or did they fight for the scum sucking Dixie loving Confederates?

Well, the majority of people in these states didn't fight at all. Women, Males too young, or too old were excluded from the battlefield. And (as I mentioned) there was a draft. Someone drafted into military service isn't choosing to fight for (or against) anybody.

- Spydertrader

phenomena · Apr 25, 2010

Yes, clearly a bunch of racists

Tea%20Party%20Sarasota%20Polo%20Grounds%20Lloyd%20Marcus%20web.jpg

Tea+Party+-+The+Token+Black+Protester+Everyone+Can+Point+to+When+Someone+Asks+Where+the+White+Hoods+Are.jpg

phenomena · Apr 25, 2010

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"States didn't fight the Civil War. People did."

So you want to be difficult?

Fine.

And did the majority of the people of the the states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland choose to fight for the Union, or did they fight for the scum sucking Dixie loving Confederates?

Did the states of New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland side with the scum sucking slave states of the South?

Yes, proof that the civil war wasnt fought over slavery. Many slave states participated in fighting against the south!

OPTIONAL777 · Apr 25, 2010

And following your "logic" America and the allied forces didn't win WWII...a minority of the people living in America and the allied countries did...

Apparently the lunacy of Jack Hershey is contagious...

...and yes, if you someone is drafted, they choose to fight...or they choose to go to brig, etc.

So since there is a choice, a person drafted who fights does indeed choose to fight...

Quote from Spydertrader:

Well, the majority of people in these states didn't fight at all. Women, Males too young, or too old were excluded from the battlefield. And (as I mentioned) there was a draft. Someone drafted into military service isn't choosing to fight for (or against) anybody.

- Spydertrader

OPTIONAL777 · Apr 25, 2010

On a percentage basis based on your photos, what percent of the teabagger supporters are black?

You claimed numerous black teabagger suppoters, I don't see numerous. I see a scant few...less than 5%.

Now if you want to amend your position from "numerous" to a very small percentage...I would not call that a flip flop...I would just call it correcting an obvious mistake.

Quote from phenomena:

Yes, clearly a bunch of racists

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VP2p91dvm6M&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VP2p91dvm6M&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fttARquMbbE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fttARquMbbE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FAc9O9Brh8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FAc9O9Brh8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>