PEST control

To a ridiculous statement.

 

No. It is not a ridiculous question. You stated that many Republicans are upset because slavery has been abolished in the United States. gkillion asked you to substantiate your statement. Can you? Please identify which Republicans advocate slavery.

 

How about that great Republican hero David Duke for starters?

 

Linking all Republicans to Duke is like linking all Democrats to George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett, Robert "KKK" Byrd (in his younger days), Jimmy Swan, Aubrey Henson, Gene Talmadge, Roswell Thompson, Richard Barrett, Mary Lou Hitt, and others.

 

Stooping to name calling is so typical of someone who has nothing to say or add to intellectual debate. Sad, very sad.

 

THE BOLD PRINT IS MY ADDITION.

 

I didn't link all Republicans to Duke. I said that many Republicans regret ending slavery. I was asked to give an example, and I cited David Duke.

That doesn't mean that all or even most Republicans agree with him. They don't. But many do, which is exactly what I said initially.

What part of that do you not understand?

 

I was called a "stoner" on another thread and not one single person had a problem with it. So, obviously, the TOS are not being enforced, or they are being enforced selectively based on political points of view.

Now, having said that, it was wrong of me to use namecalling. Such actions truly do say more about the person using the term than the person being accused.

I apologize.

 

David Duke was not a genuine Republican. He was a member of whatever party was politically expedient at the time. He was the Populist Party's Presidential nominee in 1988. Perhaps you can name a genuine Republican rather than a pseudo one.

I understand implication perfectly well, my friend, perfectly well!

 

Thank you. I know how heated debate and discussion can be. I also know how cold emails and posts can be and how easy it is to infer meanings and temperament that were not implied.

When I said "Read..." I guess that sounded condescending but I was being sincere. Perhaps I should have asked you if you had read the book or simply suggested you read it rather than come across as if I were commanding you.

Thanks again!

 

The part I don't understand is that you said "MANY" Republicans favor slavery. When asked to give examples you named ONE person, not MANY.

Do you not understand the difference between "ONE" and "MANY"?

 

The KKK does not make their membership list public, but there are certainly "many" of them, and I can't imagine that ANY would identify themselves as a Democrat, a Liberterian, a Green Party member, or anything but a Republican. The fact that I can't identify them by name says nothing about whether or not they exist.

 

How do you know which party members of the KKK belong to? I believe the KKK was formed in the South. It was the southern Democrats who opposed civil rights and integration. Which party does "Sheets" Byrd belong to?

 

grgrwll,

From the above statements i get the feeling you aren't a republican. I'm not either. I'm registered as an independent.

How do you know, then, that there are more KKK's that are GOP over liberatarian?

Since the liberatarian party is much smaller, it would stand to reason that there would be more republican KKK's, statistically. But how would you know that there wouldn't be a higher percentage of liberatarians among those available? Independents? Even democrats? Unless politics is the all-determining factor in one's lifestyle, and I don't think people's behavior can always be explained politically, your statement seems to be an overgeneralization.

I'm not certain there is anything that more closely aligns the GOP with the KKK than any of the others except the fact that you don't seem to like either of them.

How can anything else be said, given the fact that the list is not publicly available? And why would you use that as your "evidence" to back up a statement you made above that "many" republicans are pro-slavery? Your evidence is no-evidence.

Just let me, and the rest of us, know. It seems more likely to me that you are just prone to making personal attacks and that you make huge overgeneralizations without real evidence.

You apologized to Jimmy C., and that was great, I thought. What about the other poster whose question you said was "rediculous?"

 

And which party does Strom "Segregation Today, Segreation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever" Thurmond belong to?

Currently a Repub, used to be a Dem (and a Dixiecrat.) Neither of the two major parties have a monopoly on bigotry or hatred. There are elements of it in both, and for both of these parties, this hatred is an important part of their identity.

By the way, even though I've told you numerous times, you can't seem to comprehend that the fact that I oppose some Republicans does not mean that I support all Democrats.

There are a politicians in both of these parties who I respect. But, my distaste for corrupt, megalomaniacal politicians has nothing to do with party affiliation.

 

Actually George Wallace said this. Hugo Black, a Democrat, used to belong to the KKK. I grew up in the South and every KKK member I knew of was a Democrat.

 

Because bigotry and libertarianism are fundamentally incompatible.

You obviously don't live in the South. I do, and I personally know a tremendous number of bigots. Twenty years ago, they were all Democrats. Today, they are overwhelmingly Republicans. (Not a single one is Libertarian, by the way.)

Because the KKK hates affirmative action. And the Republican Party hates affirmative action.

The KKK hates having black office holders. Well over 90% of Republican office-holders are white.

The KKK loves having assault weapons so they can gun down the minorities, when the time comes. The Republican Party supports their right to have those weapons.

Do I really need to go on?

I apolgized because I called him a name. I was not talking about his argument, I was talking about him personally, and I did so by calling him a hateful name. That is simply not acceptable to me.

Calling a person a name never accomplishes anything, it's childish and hurtful, and it is indeed, typically a sign that the name caller either can not or will not make a legitimate argument.

I'm guilty of that, I said so, I explained (in detail) exactly why I thnk that what I did was wrong, and I apologized to Jimmy and to my higher power.

However, stating that someone's argument is ridiculous is simply a matter of opinion about the argument (not a judgement about the person -- there's a tremendous difference.)

And I stand by every instance where I expressed such an opinion.

 

And where did Robert "Sheets" Byrd ever advocate the wearing of sheets. In fact, I would love to see one bit of evidence that Byrd ever wore the KKK garb. Yes, he was a member. But do you have any evidence that he ever even wore a robe?

By the way, Jimmy, if you had bothered to actually read what I wrote before you responded, you would see that I said that neither of the two major parties has a monopoly on racism. You would also see that, like you, I said that all of the bigots I knew when I was growing up were Democrats. However, I also pointed out that today, most of these very same bigots are Republicans.

 

"Sheets" is used symbolically to represent the KKK.

Yes, I see what you say when you are called on some posts you made. But, if you were to acutally cull all your posts you would see how easy it is to state you think all Republicans are racists or members of the KKK.

I agree, no one party has a monopoly on racism. I know a number of Libertarians who are racists.

Perhaps if you would always say "some...a few...a number...etc...of Republicans..." you might save yourself some hostile rebuttals. This is just a suggestion based on my own penchant to use too many all-inclusive words at times when referring to groups of folks.

 

In this, case Jimmy, I specifically stated that I was talking about "many" Republicans. Not all. Not most. Many. Yet YOU -- You, specifically, Jimmy Clifton -- still accused me of linking David Duke to ALL Republicans.

Obviously, even if I adhere to your admonition, it will make no difference. Even if I use some qualifier (which I nearly always do already), the zealots will ignore it. Ironically, you yourself have provided the evidence for this, right on this very thread.