forums

Burgess Owens interview

ddann said:
Okay, so just to recap:

1) While under heavy criticism, Lincoln sends a letter to the editor in order to clarify his real agenda.

2) Following this, the historical record shows that Lincoln proceeds in a manner that demonstrates that he meant exactly what he said about his agenda in his letter to the editor.

3) You conclude that Lincoln didn’t really mean what he said in his letter to the editor.
Click to expand...

Except historical records show Lincoln literally sent over 100k kids to their death in order to free the slaves.
 
Advertisement
nobeastofburden said:
People look down at southerners without having a freaking clue about what we experience or the unwritten rules down here. I lived 16 years in the NE and rust belt total (5 playing minor league ball) , 40 in the deep deep south. I never saw any of the nonsense the left talks about in the south and I was deep deep in the country with our closest neighbors in a trailer park 3 miles away. You didn't get much more country than where I'm from. Never ever saw rebel flags, kids never wore that ****, there never was any racial tension. So you want to get it right you can call the white people in the midwest and ne racist but leave the southerners out of it. You want rebel flag racist idiots go to Ohio. And you have lost your ******* mind if you don't think Boston is racist as ****. I lived it, calling my wife a monkey my kids chimps. Yeah ok they aren't racist. Bull****, and they ain't conservatives. Lost your mind. You all watched Mississippi burning too many times.
Click to expand...

I actually witnessed racism first hand in Georgia, North Florida, and Alabama. So just because you personally didn't see it doesn't mean schit.

Of course Boston has tons of racists. However, you are dead wrong. They are mainly blue collar Irishman who vote straight red down the line. There are plenty of racist liberals that you can use as examples. No need to lie and claim the liberals in Boston are the racist ones.
 
OriginalGatorHater said:
Except historical records show Lincoln literally sent over 100k kids to their death in order to free the slaves.
Click to expand...
The question that always makes me wonder is what would have happened if they had reached a peace agreement before 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed? Likewise, what if there had never been a 3/5 Compromise? Could slavery have ended sooner and without 600,000 deaths?
 
JD08 said:
The question that always makes me wonder is what would have happened if they had reached a peace agreement before 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed? Likewise, what if there had never been a 3/5 Compromise? Could slavery have ended sooner and without 600,000 deaths?
Click to expand...
I don’t think Lee or Jefferson Davis would have struck any peace. Their distain for Lincoln and the central government was very deep, the South was way more passionate about the war and really wanted to be totally separate from the Union.
 
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
So now it’s about [civility]? LMAO!

You stupidly attack my harmless post and rather than man up and just say my bad, now it’s “…can’t we all get along”? You throw out insults and when the high heat returns it’s, “…bu, bu, but I’m a girl!”?

Figures. Your parents might not be ****** but they did do a ****** job. Or, maybe it wasn’t their fault at all and it’s just a weird transaction of genetics where your code reads…

P-S-S-Y
U-S-S-Y
S-S-Y-P
S-Y-P-U
Y-P-U-S
Click to expand...
Your responses here are your responsibility. You’re flailing around calling people names and insulting their parents, for no discernible reason.

So you don’t like the thread. It’s about a great Cane and great person, and timely to current events. You had no need to post in it. I didn’t start the thread and made my point known civilly. If you think my post is unreasonable for some reason, just note that as of this moment, it has 29 like-button responses, 28 of which are positive. Only you seemed to think it was Dumb. You’re entitled to your view, but your job isn’t to tell everyone else what Cane subjects they can post on. Or what views are okay to express in threads around here. We have moderators for that, and fortunately they exercise their role as adults.
 
Advertisement
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
LOL. So you’re citing the 29 other jackasses that live to post political nonsense as your support? Talk about desperate. Well, since you’re attempting to be the voice or reason, however belatedly, I’ll be holding my breath waiting for your apology for jumping to the wrong conclusion in your initial attack.
Click to expand...
You are really special. I offended you by jumping to a conclusion? That’s what explains your meltdown? Your stream of curses and denigrating the parents of someone you don’t know?

Let’s look at the actual post where you claim I ‘jumped to a conclusion.’ I wrote the following, after quoting your post: “Did it ever occur to you that there is no inherent contradiction in that observation?” That’s it. I asked you a question, in direct response to a link you chosed to post. Politely. No curses. Just a question. From that, you went full ******.

Now you’re calling everyone who responded to the post a jackass, for no reason other than you are triggered and cannot regain your composure. But I’m ‘desperate’, you say. Even though you are the one streaming curses and insulting my parents. Even though as of this afternoon, 28 posters other than you apparently liked the post, and no one else seemed triggered by it. Make sense to you?
 
Last edited:
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
Wouldn’t you feel special if you offended me? What you did was undermine your own narrative of being above it all because either you can’t comprehend English or because you can’t admit you’re wrong, but mostly showing that you’re not above it all. That you’re the ***** I said you were. Again, I’m embarrassed for you … but not really.
Click to expand...
You’re like Yassir Arafat — neither of you ever missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. All you have to do is stop behaving like an emotionally unstable teenager and you can put this behind you. Instead, you keep calling me offensive names and spewing garbage. Perhaps you think that’s a way to reaffirm your manliness. Hope it’s working for you. I doubt you’re picking up admirers, but maybe there are some sausage smugglers here who are secretly salivating over your swashbuckling style.

In any case, you may be delusional if you think I have a ‘narrative’ that is about being ‘above it all.’ That sounds more like your projection than anything else. Consider me flattered that you purport to have a view on the topic.
 
Advertisement
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
LOL. Now you’re trying to impress me with historical references? What’s really impressed me (well, not in a positive way) is the lengths you’ll go through to avoid manning up, taking that L and apologizing for jumping to illogical conclusions. And, you gift for projecting … stunningly transparent - especially as you meander from victim to jester back to victim. For agenda driven, rhetoric regurgitating propagandists like yourself this is par for the course.

Where’s that apology, by the way?
Click to expand...
Good job staying away from calling me curse names and insulting my parents. It’s a sign of your progress.
 
Advertisement
TheMatador said:
And how many stayed segregationists in the Democratic Party?
Click to expand...

"Although the phrase "Southern Strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it but popularized it. In an interview included in a 1970 NYT article, 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 ***** 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.

While Phillips sought to increase Republican power by polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not just to win the white South, the South was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level. Gradually, Southern voters began to elect Republicans to Congress and finally to statewide and local offices, particularly as some legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. In addition, the Republican Party worked for years to develop grassroots political organizations across the South, supporting candidates for local school boards and city and county offices as examples, but following the Watergate Southern voters came out in support for the "favorite son" candidate, Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter.

From 1948 to 1984, the Southern states, for decades a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, a reversal of the position held by southern states prior to the Civil War. Some political analysts said this term was used in the 20th century as a "code word" to represent opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and to federal intervention on their behalf; many individual southerners had opposed passage of the Voting Rights Act."
 
My best friend in the Army was a black school teacher from NYC. We were stationed in Albany Georgia. This was in 1964 so we could not go out on the town together. He got out several weeks before me so I asked if he was going back to NYC. He surprised me and said he had a job in Georgia and was moving his family there. I was astonished so asked why. He said I know where I stand here but in NYC they pat you on the back and then stab you. He preferred honesty over hypocrisy, over the years things have changed, he is still in Georgia and has no desire to ever live in NYC. Great and thoughtful friend.
 
Advertisement
CaneSince4Ever said:
"Although the phrase "Southern Strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it but popularized it. In an interview included in a 1970 NYT article, 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 ***** 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.

While Phillips sought to increase Republican power by polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not just to win the white South, the South was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level. Gradually, Southern voters began to elect Republicans to Congress and finally to statewide and local offices, particularly as some legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. In addition, the Republican Party worked for years to develop grassroots political organizations across the South, supporting candidates for local school boards and city and county offices as examples, but following the Watergate Southern voters came out in support for the "favorite son" candidate, Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter.

From 1948 to 1984, the Southern states, for decades a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, a reversal of the position held by southern states prior to the Civil War. Some political analysts said this term was used in the 20th century as a "code word" to represent opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and to federal intervention on their behalf; many individual southerners had opposed passage of the Voting Rights Act."
Click to expand...
Look at the breakdown of votes for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. All of the nays are from the south and most are Democrat.
House D. R.
Yea. 221. 112.
Nay. 62. 23.

Senate. D. R.
Yea. 47. 30
Nay. 16. 2

There's only one side that pushes the switch BS because it benefits them and tries to paint the entire other party as racist. The entire race issue has evolved over 50 years in both the south and the north.
 
Tetra, how about actually responding? What do you disagree with? The vote tallies are a matter of public record. There are millions of Republicans who were Republicans before the 60's and continued to be. The only ones who claim a switch are the Democrats, because they are ashamed of their party's history. The simple fact is that both parties have become more accepting. The fact that an interracial couple can walk around almost any city in the country without fear and there are elected officials of all races on both sides is proof enough.


Voting Rights Act - House
Voting Rights Act - Senate
 
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
Against my better judgement...

It’s a highly fabricated and disingenuous argument. Any true (remedial?) study of history would uncover this. That whole line of thinking is for mouth-breathers glued to talk radio/right-wing/conspiracy talking points; it’s for people incapable of thinking for themselves or tickled with the idea that this arguments a winner. It isn’t. It’s not worthy of my time/thoughts. It just isn’t.

How about we stick to football, I mostly agree with you there.

(Plus, I posted a video months back on just this topic)
Click to expand...
So which point do you disagree with?
 
Advertisement
Back
Top