Your history not the facts. My grandfather born in 1874 was a republican against slavery as was most of the south and all repuclicans. The south fought to stop land grabs from the north on the most part slavery was just an excuse to attack and rob. Only good thing that came out of it was slaves were freed in the process.
I had a long night of Destiny 2 with one of my closest friends last night (OMG what a game!!!!) He is a HARDCORE single issue voter (environment) but because of that, he will defend anyone who is on "his side" until the end. This ends up making him a Democrat. I hadn't even heard about the Ron Paul thing and he was literally laughing about it. I asked if he thought it would be funny if it happened to a Democratic congressmen/senator and he said (and I quote) "Oh whatever, he was angry that the leaves kept blowing in his yard, it had nothing to do with politics" After sending 10 minutes almost angry with him, I do think he finally understood that what he was saying was obviously a lie. I pointed out to him that almost all of the violent "things" that have happened have been from Democrats, of course he countered with "The Nazi guy driving the car" which I said I agreed, but when asked for another he was silent. I warned him (he lives in downtown LA) that one of these days something like this is going to happen, and the Republicans are actually going to rise up and do something back. I would say we are on our way to a CIvil War, but more a war between.... those civilized? No, that doesn't fit..... Anyways, he made one last comment that made me twitch. He said "The Republicans better be careful, it seems like the Democrats are much more willing to go completely nuts rather than just politically nuts. I answered that I thought the Republicans I knew were actually much more capable of violence if they wanted to, and that he better watch what he wishes for. If the Republicans start to go violent, they are much more armed, organized and able. If the normal everyday Republican voters decide to get as violent as the Democrat voters more often are, the country will be torn apart by violence. He and many other Democrats better watch what they ask for
That's the beauty of concealed carry. No one really knows who's carrying and who's not. My property is posted and fairly well protected though.
You admitted to being a racist. How is this "lame" name calling. Your contempt for Jews are well known on this forum. You deny that fact??
Yeah I did. But I changed my mind because of a post from Channe. He's right. Racism doesn't exist. THe word is based on a dishonest liberal fallacy to discredit whites which presumes we hate non-whites because of their skin pigmentation and nothing else, which is retarded. Yeah. What makes you think I have contempt for Jews? I have defended them from racism many times and frequently state that not all Jews are evil and responsible for white demise.
It has legitimacy to it but the word is also grossly stretched and used to single out whites to browbeat, shake down, and otherwise attempt to deprive them of their national sovereignty in white-founded, white-majority countries.
That's cowardice. You don't murder someone for physically attacking you. Grow a pair and defend yourself physically.
Not everyone is able to defend themselves physically, which seems too obvious to bother mentioning. There's a reason why a gun is called "The Great Equalizer".
THE PRESS IS A HERD OF CATS, AND TWITTER IS TRUMP’S LASER BEAM: 5 things Trump did this week while you weren’t looking. 3. New Cuba sanctions
My point was US liberals picking up guns and trying to get violent. If you want to try and draw a parallel between them and the soviet union in the 1930's and 1940's be my guest.
It was certainly the 'liberals', aka 'progressives', who supported Communism during the Cold War (and many still do) and denounced anyone, such as Reagan or Thatcher, who didn't go along with their progressive ideas. Fanaticism has always been a part of the left wing agenda and it's manifesting itself once more with Antifa, the suppression of free speech, racism, and the 'lone wolf' killings of innocent people.
I was asking because the Soviets did have some "liberal" ideas, such as women fighting on the frontlines. And also because at least half of the people who use "liberal" to attack someone have no idea what it means, leading to multiple definitions. Hence my questionning.
Fanatism is the province of those who see all in black and white. It isn't exclusive to any side on the political spectrum. ISIL's fanatism is certainly not a left-sided one.
Crystal clear, if it wasn't for what exactly you describe as a "liberal". It is a progressive? A leftist? An anarchist? An elitist? A totalitarian? An atheist? A pro-choice person? A black person? A Jewish person? A democrat? Or is it simply "not you"? Are Liberals "untermenschen" whose existance's sole purpose is to ruin what non-Liberal "ubermenschen" built?
