Community > Posts By > ronny4dating

 
no photo
Tue 12/08/09 04:04 PM

it's strange to me that 30, 40, and 50 years ago the south was vastly Democratic and and pretty conservative

and now it has become mostly Republican (and still conservative)

what are now red states were once blue states and vice versa



not strange at all the democratic party is the party of rhetoric and have always been on the wrong side of history. the party of the sheople!

no photo
Tue 12/08/09 04:01 PM



your only response was its stil not true, its still not true, its still not true! like a broken record! lol... the evidence is clear and there is mountains of it! but its cool dragoness maybe next time just be more prepared!


welcome to my world...


Get it right and you guys won't have that problem...lol


The problem lies with your inability to be honest! But it does not matter this is a website big deal! Everyone that reads this post that is honest will see you are wrong and thats a fact jack!:banana:

no photo
Tue 12/08/09 03:58 PM


the democrat party was created by non other than Andrew Jackson.the donkey used as a symbol of derision for his populist roots was adopted by the party

The original Jacksonian party had no place for blacks, women, or Indians. The democrats are the party of the Trail of Tears

they have morphed and evolved snce then but that is their origin


Very interesting quiet, I appreciate the history lesson.

The only problem for me here is not that something good can come from something bad as has happened with the dems, well some of the dems.

I have an issue with the inaccuracy of the fact that the man who founded the kkk was not a democrat and so the dems may have liked the kkk, may have used them for evil works, etc... but they were not the founders of the kkk.

It was an inaccuracy I will not let slide because I am bored and have nothing better to do....lol



Yeah i gave you the facts and you still didn't want to except it. In your opinion the timing of the collapse of the democrat party and the uprising of the KKK has no relation. The fact the founder clearly stated his orginazation supported the democratic party is illrelavent i mean after all he could of been a republican right? The fact the investigation into the KKK of the 1860's leading to the ku klux klan bill of 1871 had mountaians of testimony of witness' testifying to the fact many democrat politicians as members high in the ranks and therefore had to be democrats prior to the founding. Ignore the fact that KKK used intimidation tactic's in direct relation to democratic legislation. Ignore the fact that General forest was a confederate general taking orders from a democrat during the war. No historian argues this fact in my research they just except as a known reality. Ignore the fact that general forest self proclaimed the KKK as a paramilitary political orginization giving their support to the democratic party. This is all irrelevent.

no photo
Tue 12/08/09 03:41 PM
Yeah many of the conservatives talk show hosts have radio adds pushing gold. I made a killing off one of them from 2002. But right now you have to think that there will be a decline soon it has gone up so damn much in the last decade. But precious metals are a very safe investment, you could lose money but they are never worthless like stocks can be. But there is quite a contradiction there i think. But you have to admit precious metals are where you want to be in a colapse!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 09:58 PM


yeah the other dude too, couldnt firgure out his angle so anti obama but was disputing white racism! then i looked at his profile and BINGO! Dude it was like playing basketball with elementry school children! I was dunken on both of them left and right and took them on and the same time! It was tooooooooooo easy! they had nothing! Straight shreded them, i doubt they will ever debate me again??


Too bad you didn't do what you keep saying you did.

You might hurt yourself patting yourself on the back for nothing.


i crushed you your only response was its stil not true, its still not true, its still not true! like a broken record! lol... the evidence is clear and there is mountains of it! but its cool dragoness maybe next time just be more prepared!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 09:50 PM
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: straight dunkin on fools!:laughing: :laughing: rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 09:47 PM
lol.... lmao and another one!


http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Anti-kkk-cartoon.jpg

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 09:46 PM
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Image:Kkk-carpetbagger-cartoon.jpg


lol... check this out dude lol.....

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 09:42 PM
yeah the other dude too, couldnt firgure out his angle so anti obama but was disputing white racism! then i looked at his profile and BINGO! Dude it was like playing basketball with elementry school children! I was dunken on both of them left and right and took them on and the same time! It was tooooooooooo easy! they had nothing! Straight shreded them, i doubt they will ever debate me again??

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 09:36 PM


yes i have been trying to tell her, i showed the evidence and even pointed out the democrtas dont dispute it they themselves except it as fact. 1871 ku klux klan act proof on record they founded it!


That is not true and you haven't proven anything.

So stop lying about it.


sure did its right there in black and white you kust refuse do go read it lol....:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 09:17 PM
yes i have been trying to tell her, i showed the evidence and even pointed out the democrtas dont dispute it they themselves except it as fact. 1871 ku klux klan act proof on record they founded it!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 08:59 PM





Below is an actual interveiw with general Forest! He states the KKK give their support to the democrat party! Now you already admitted he was the founder as a matter of fact you pointed it out. I agree with you, but you can now change your opinion and say he is not the founder because he always claimed he was not even though there is clear evidence he was! But you didnt dispute he was the founder you disputed he was not a democrat and had nothing to do with politics. just read it! sorry your just wrong! He clearly states that the KKK as a political orginazation and it's intent!



"Well, sir, there is such an organization, not only in Tennessee, but all over the South, and its numbers have not been exaggerated."

"What are its numbers, general?"

"In Tennessee there are over 40,000; in all the Southern states they number about 550,000 men."

"What is the character of the organization; May I inquire?"

"Yes, sir. It is a protective political military organization. I am willing to show any man the constitution of the society. The members are sworn to recognize the government of the United States. It does not say anything at all about the government of Tennessee. Its objects originally were protection against Loyal Leagues and the Grand Army of the Republic; but after it became general it was found that political matters and interests could best be promoted within it,


and it was then made a political organization, giving it support, of course, to the democratic party."





"But is the organization connected throughout the state?"

"Yes, it is. In each voting precinct there is a captain, who, in addition to his other duties, is required to make out a list of names of men in his precinct, giving all the radicals and all the democrats who are positively known, and showing also the doubtful on both sides and of both colors. This list of names is forwarded to the grand commander of the State, who is thus enabled to know are our friends and who are not."

"Can you, or are you at liberty to give me the name of the commanding officer of this State?"

"No, it would be impolitic."




so here it is The ku klux klan act of 1871 proved that the democrats founded the KKK. look it up in the congessional record! Sorry sweetheart it's fact! I never fail just educate the ignorant!
He didn't say he was a democrat nor that the kkk was democrat.

So you still have failed.


so here it is The ku klux klan act of 1871 proved that the democrats founded the KKK. look it up in the congessional record! Sorry sweetheart it's actually not an opinion, but a fact the democrats have apoligized for!


Okay he founded the KKK, and i quote

"and it was then made a political organization, giving it support, of course, to the democratic party."

so as the founder and head of this orginazation that he founded they give their support to the democrat party, but he was not a democrat? As a confederate General he took his commands from the democrat party, lost the war and i quote again "and it was then made a political organization" The ku klux he states later in the interveiw.

Come on i am not gonna call you any names, but are you honest? I mean really you can not conclude the democrat party founded the KKK?

democrats lose the civil war......

One of the democrats most popular generals founds a new political orginazation called the ku klux right after losing the war.

the ku Klux begin enforcing democratic ideology thoughout america when they lose in the ballot box.

The other evidence is overwhelming and it is in the congessional records!

Most politicians don't even deny it this point they just say they have changed!

You see whether you admit you are wrong or not you have proved a point! As a democrat you refuse to admit the wrong of your party and are willing to lie for them! I wont i plainly state when my party is wrong!




He was not a democrat and the kkk was created by him. So the dems did not create the KKK as previously stated.

I am not a democrat so I must have another reason for not allowing a lie to happen, huh?

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 08:42 PM

If the Republicans had not been opportunists and really wanted to end slavery why didn't they offer ideas, incentives, or alternative to the South's need for manual labor?
Like today, solutions never entered their minds. They instead taxed every ship load of cotton that left a southern port to finance their own interests.


yes i see your motive now!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 08:42 PM
AH Fanta your a southern man educated in the southern school system from 1965 thru 1978 roughly. I see so clearly now! Kinda lost your democrat party and your forefathers wont let you vote republican eh? I mean sir do you realize that your statements clearly are in line with racist rhetoric of the civil rights era? Are you aware of that? My grandmother was a racist from Arkansas and completely refused to aknowledge my wife and kids and i have heard this jargen from them as well! need to worsh yeer history a little i rekon! LMAO!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 08:31 PM

The idea of fighting to end slavery was a rouse. It was not a contributing factor in the motivation of the soldiers of the CSA to fight.
They didnt own slaves.



oh yes i completely know and they wanted their daughters dating the sub human race as well right? I MEAN IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM AND THE SOUTH IS A PILAR OF SOCIETY IN TERMS OF RACE RELATIONS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. THE POOR SOUTH THEY ARE JUST SO MISUNDERSTOOD!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 08:18 PM

Since the North didn't end slavery in their territory at the beginning of the war. One can only come to the evident conclussion that the true Republican interest was as mentioned in the first 7 declarations of secession.

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.



nope cant come to that conclusion at all cause they did do it and slaves where mostly in the south! not to mention thats a lot of speculation when they clearly stated they wanted to end slavery. Your obviously the type to beleive in UFO's, black helicopters, secret societies, we didnt land on the moon and so on!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 08:14 PM



If the Norths clear intent was to end slavery, why didnt they start with the beginning of the war? They had their country they could have ended slavery there.

They didn't because that wasn't their intent.
They were, like now, a Party of opportunists with corporate interests in mind.


the north could not survive without the south! The north also after the succesion was torn politically over slavery! Not all the north was abolishnists, nor all republican! you act as if one poitical ideology had the agreement of all its citizens! It took time to get the legislation thru because even though a republican idea it was not a popular one among the entire country north and south! The South just flatly refused so we said okay we will force you! It was always there intent, why else would they take such an unpopular idea and make it their political platform? your argument is not well thought out and quite biased, i have already proved you wrong on multiple occasions and when i do you wont comment on that you just ignore i said it!


The South wanted to end slavery. Invention had not yet caught up to demand though. They were an agriculture economy which supplied 80% of England's cotton as well as most of the worlds. Including the North!

To just end slavery would have been and was economically devastating.



oh i get it the south didnt want to end slavery because their poor white citizens could not handle an economic down turn right? yeah that makes sense!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 08:09 PM



If the Norths clear intent was to end slavery, why didnt they start with the beginning of the war? They had their country they could have ended slavery there.

They didn't because that wasn't their intent.
They were, like now, a Party of opportunists with corporate interests in mind.


the north could not survive without the south! The north also after the succesion was torn politically over slavery! Not all the north was abolishnists, nor all republican! you act as if one poitical ideology had the agreement of all its citizens! It took time to get the legislation thru because even though a republican idea it was not a popular one among the entire country north and south! The South just flatly refused so we said okay we will force you! It was always there intent, why else would they take such an unpopular idea and make it their political platform? your argument is not well thought out and quite biased, i have already proved you wrong on multiple occasions and when i do you wont comment on that you just ignore i said it!


The South wanted to end slavery. Invention had not yet caught up to demand though. They were an agriculture economy which supplied 80% of England's cotton as well as most of the worlds. Including the North!

To just end slavery would have been and was economically devastating.



yes i know your stating the obvious now!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 08:08 PM



NC seceded after the Fed gov threatened to attack across their land the State of SC. That's why there is no mention of slavery.

Here,
Ga is more specific. They were one of the first to secede.
Make sure you read what the say about the Republicans interests in power.

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.

This part!

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury.




dude are you okay or are smoking something???? read your own post! It clearly made my point for me! The abolishment of slavery goes back to the founding but the clear depedency of slavery made it impossible politically!


What they are saying there is that when the constitution was signed they only ratified it and joined in a union of the Unite States if their interests were maintained. When they were, then they agreed and ratified.
Then all of a sudden, even though all parties agreed that the end of slavery was best. North and South alike, that they weren't economically ready and without a full amendment to the constitution they were being forced. Forced to do something that was guaranteed in the constitution.
Therefore they were free as in the constitution to break from the union. Contract breached.
States rights!

Now mind you the only ones who took this stance were the first 7.
There could not have been a Civil war without one side or the other having to impose on another states rights and invade upon their land.

The North were the only ones threatening that.
The 7 alone did not have the strength to challenge anyone militarily.
The other 6 were reacting to a direct threat upon their sovereignty.
Also as granted in the constitution (a contract of agreement) the Republican Party was attempting too breach.


why did they want to breach the contract?

we survived economically so they where wrong and it was time!

How does it not become about slavery when you stated yourself that they wanted to breach the contract and abolish slavery and the south said no so the north invaded.

You make no sense! Your saying the south agreed we needed to abolish slavery just not yet right? dont you think maybe this was a political ploy rather than the opposite? I understand your point in standing up for the confederate army and all but your wrong! The South has tried to rewrite history as well they name their schools after old confederate generals and so forth! sorry man just cause you quote a confederate doesnt mean crap!

no photo
Mon 12/07/09 07:51 PM

If the Norths clear intent was to end slavery, why didnt they start with the beginning of the war? They had their country they could have ended slavery there.

They didn't because that wasn't their intent.
They were, like now, a Party of opportunists with corporate interests in mind.


the north could not survive without the south! The north also after the succesion was torn politically over slavery! Not all the north was abolishnists, nor all republican! you act as if one poitical ideology had the agreement of all its citizens! It took time to get the legislation thru because even though a republican idea it was not a popular one among the entire country north and south! The South just flatly refused so we said okay we will force you! It was always there intent, why else would they take such an unpopular idea and make it their political platform? your argument is not well thought out and quite biased, i have already proved you wrong on multiple occasions and when i do you wont comment on that you just ignore i said it!

1 2 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 24 25