Violence: An American Tradition (Part 1 of 6): You Tube

Fixed that for you


Ginger, black men are not being kept down. That's the delusion you entertain, so that you don't feel so bad about your shortcomings. Cream always rises to the top.
You never had a corner on that market. LOL
And you still can't come up with your own original thought, eh? Sad, but true. LOL. Well, they say that imitation is the sincerely form of flattery. So thank ya.
 
Black men are being kept down by "white privilige". That's the delusion I entertain, so that I don't feel so bad about my shortcomings. Cream always rises to the top; but for some reason, I always sink to the bottom.
I'm trying to get a corner on that market.
And I still can't come up with my own original thoughts, eh? Sad, but true.

Fixed that for you Mary. :)
 
Disgusting. But I'm sure that's what blows up your skirt. Which one is your mother?

ohthedrama.jpg
 
Fixed that for you Mary. :)

Quite alright. Someone sent me the 411 on you...apparently you've been 'waxing', this way, for the past 10 years, educationally-challenged as you are.
Insight is helpful...I can forgive you your transgressions, because you're not responsible for your situation. As it is. LOL.
 
Quite alright. Someone sent me the 411 on you...apparently you've been 'waxing', this way, for the past 10 years, educationally-challenged as you are.
Insight is helpful...I can forgive you your transgressions, because you're not responsible for your situation. As it is. LOL.

Mary; you're just flapping your gums, in the hope that you can finally make a comment that affects me in some way. Responding to your diatribe does not equal affect.
You do seem to project a lot; but then, that is all you have. :)
 
Shall we start prior to the Civil War or do you have that portion of US history undistorted?

You can start when and wherever you like. America is entrenched in violence, from its' start to the present. By the way, I'm a history buff.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by DamnYankee

The issue here is that the Democrat Party is responsible for ignoring the precepts of the Constitution, specifically with respect to civil rights.


Well, if that were true, then minorities should be firmly in the pocket of the Republican Party, singing their praises. Instead, minorities are firmly entrenched in the Democratic Party, and strangely enough, have been, since the election of John F. Kennedy, and solidified in the early 70's, out of the Black Power Movement, Womens' rights movement, and protest against the Vietnam War, which was a pet project of the Republican Party. If the Republican Party was the party of "civil rights", why were they opposed to blacks, women, and in opposition to expanded freedoms for them. Where were the women in the Republican Party, especially in the 70's, and in positions of authority or power? Nowhere to be found. Republican women began to become a force under Reagan, ten years later. Kinda late in the game. But where were the blacks? Under Reagan, there were token blacks in low level positions of power and authority, and Colin Powell became of age. However, no numbers to speak of. What was the problem? Were blacks and persons of color, too dumb to realize that the Republican Party was their "liberator" and "champion"? Or did they realize that it was the Democratic Party talking inclusion and power sharing?

The precepts of the Constitution? Championed by Thomas Jefferson? Who was perhaps, the most liberal founding father??????????????
The Democratic Party embodies the precepts of the Constitution. Thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
You can start when and wherever you like. America is entrenched in violence, from its' start to the present. By the way, I'm a history buff.
Then you should realize that the Republican Party started over the issue of slavery, and was opposed with secession by the Democrat Party. If you don't understand that that you don't know history.
 
Then you should realize that the Republican Party started over the issue of slavery, and was opposed with secession by the Democrat Party. If you don't understand that that you don't know history.

Uh, I've reposted the link documenting how and when the parties switched ideologies. If you don't read it, in its' entirety, then you'll continue to be stuck in a fantasy about history, instead of the reality.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_republicans_become_democrats_and_democrats_become_republicans

And if you don't agree with it...then dispute it, succinctly, and thoroughly.
 
and thats when it was happening, fool...not today.

Pardon me? The Republicans who voted in favor of the civil rights act are now known as Democrats. And the Democrats (Dixiecrats) who voted against the civil rights act, would be known as Republicans today. Your mama was a fool.
 
Uh, I've reposted the link documenting how and when the parties switched ideologies. If you don't read it, in its' entirety, then you'll continue to be stuck in a fantasy about history, instead of the reality.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_republicans_become_democrats_and_democrats_become_republicans

And if you don't agree with it...then dispute it, succinctly, and thoroughly.

Don't you realize that wiki articles can be written by anyone? Until you realize that you can't possibly understand history. :palm:
 
Don't you realize that wiki articles can be written by anyone? Until you realize that you can't possibly understand history. :palm:

Don't you realise that Wikipedia articles are checked by thousands of volunteers and contentious articles are locked allowing only approved personnel to change the contents. I have amended a few articles myself and it surprises me how quickly you get jumped on if you don't do things right.
 
Don't you realize that wiki articles can be written by anyone? Until you realize that you can't possibly understand history. :palm:


Indeed. They can and are written by anyone. Sometimes by learned, exceptional folk. Are you discounting the validity of the article, simply because you take issue with the conclusions drawn? How foolish.
 
Indeed. They can and are written by anyone. Sometimes by learned, exceptional folk. Are you discounting the validity of the article, simply because you take issue with the conclusions drawn? How foolish.
Your wiki article is pure bullshit, as explained earlier. :)
 
Don't you realise that Wikipedia articles are checked by thousands of volunteers and contentious articles are locked allowing only approved personnel to change the contents. I have amended a few articles myself and it surprises me how quickly you get jumped on if you don't do things right.

And yet when writing a paper, there isn't a professor worth his or her salt, that will allow you to reference wiki as a source.
 
The Following User Groans At poet For This Awful Post:



icedancer2theend (Today)


Bitch, ask me if I care what you think. Ya blond sitting your fat ass in a cubicle, pushing papers bitch.
 
And yet when writing a paper, there isn't a professor worth his or her salt, that will allow you to reference wiki as a source.

That's as may be, but there was a survey done in 2005 that found Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica to about the same with regards to accuracy for scientific topics, of course Wiki is much more likely to be up to date as well.

Wiki has introduced a whole raft of new safeguards since then, including the locking down of contentious articles, the ability to match edits to IP addresses and determine patterns, as well as adding watchlists so editors so that entries can be watched to see when new changes are made.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
 
Back
Top