• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ku Klux Klan rally ends in violence

DA60 said:
My guess is the KKK were fighting over a) whose sister is better in bed; and b) whether Trump has a hairpiece or not.
Click to expand...

Hey buddy, your pm box is full. :shrug:
 
OpportunityCost said:
Random blown up guy representing Negan on The Walking Dead stated it pretty well: If you have to eat ****, its best not to nibble: bite, chew, swallow, repeat.

I would post a video link but I think I would get in some trouble for the language.
Click to expand...

Except that i never claimed they didn't have the right to speech or the right to self defense, so i was never eating ****.

VM just figured out his own argument was a strawman and somehow thought that was my problem, lol...
 
The KKK are they still newsworthy? What is the membership at present. Aren't street gangs and motorcycle gangs are greater threat to our country? How many bikers have Swastika tattoos and how many kids do street gangs kill annually? What is the IQ of street gangs, bikers and KKKers?
 
Captain Courtesy, your argument is dishonest.
And it has you who has been trying to manipulate the discussion instead of focusing in what was actually said.

You are just digging your hole further.

The dishonesty is and has been all yours.
It has already been pointed out.



CaptainCourtesy said:
So, for the forth time:

Here is the issue:

"Voicing your opinion doesn't deserve an ass kicking."

You say that is supported by law. Tell me exactly WHAT there is supported by law. I've already asked you TWICE and you didn't respond. And, for you efforts, after you identify WHAT is supported by law, quote the law. I've already clarified my position. You have not clarified yours.

Now, the first thing you have to do is say what you believe the issue actually is in that statement. I've already clarified it twice, but you are dishonestly ignoring that clarification. Then, proceed with answering my questions with statement, not more questions.

This will go on for as long as you choose to remain dishonest about what I am asking.
Click to expand...
Hilarious.
It was already answered with rhetorical questions, of which you answered in the affirmative to one and later (as quoted below) to a second.
That is an admittance on your part to the correctness of what I said.

That is where this discussion should end.


CaptainCourtesy said:
"Do you really not understand that the action of kicking ones ass is only legal under certain circumstances and speaking an opinion isn't one of them."
Click to expand...

Correct. Now tell me, is it legal to THINK about or WANT to kick someone's ass for an opinion that one does not like, but not to act on it. This is important as THIS is they issue I have been discussing right from the beginning.
Click to expand...
While your statement of "correct" is honesty, your continuance into the other is the dishonesty.


CaptainCourtesy said:
and guess what? YOU don't get to decide what I was discussing. I do.
Click to expand...
No CC. While you can certainly attempt discuss what you want, it is you who does not get to quote me and then try to make it about something I did not say.
And you especially don't get to continue do it without getting checked again after it has already been pointed out to you that you got it wrong.


As you were told; "2. I did not say his desire to see something was against the law. Are you really not able to see what is actually being argued?"

This is your dishonesty in trying to manipulate it to be about something it was not.
I did not argue "desire" therefore you do not get to make it about "desire" as if I did.

Trying to do so is dishonesty and manipulative. It doesn't fly.

You can continue with this dishonesty all you like and I will continue to point out the dishonesty of it.
You quoted me. What you quoted was not about "desire" but was about the action.

You have addressed the action. I was correct. The opinion of; "Voicing your opinion doesn't deserve an ass kicking.", is supported by the law.
 
iguanaman said:
I don't condone violence but you can't help but know which group was first to use it. The KKK cut it's teeth on lynchings you know.
Click to expand...

Yes they did. They were the militant arm of the Democrat Party.
 
zimmer said:
Yes they did. They were the militant arm of the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...

They were never a part of the Democratic party, they may have been Democrats but only because everyone in the South were Democrats because of the hatred pf Lincoln. That changed when the Civil Rights amendment was passed by Democrats and you know it. The racists all switched parties and remain so to this day.
 
iguanaman said:
They were never a part of the Democratic party, they may have been Democrats but only because everyone in the South were Democrats because of the hatred pf Lincoln. That changed when the Civil Rights amendment was passed by Democrats and you know it. The racists all switched parties and remain so to this day.
Click to expand...

Not everyone in the south were Democrats. These KKKers killed Republicans; black and white.

"Historian Eric Foner observed:
...the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party,..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

There is only one party with a perfect record supporting black Americans rights. That is the Republican Party.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill and led an unsuccessful 83-day filibuster, including Senators Albert Gore, Sr. (D-TN) and J. William Fulbright (D-AR), as well as Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), who personally filibustered for 14 hours straight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Continued_resistance
Gore and Byrd are well known... Fulbright was none other than Clinton's "mentor".

The CRA wouldn't have passed without Republican votes.

William Byrd... the Senate Majority and Minority Leader for some 13-years... the man who brought the KKK to WV.
Obviously the Demokrat Party wasn't too concerned about having a KKKer as the head of the party in the Senate.

Now, if he had been a Republican... we would never hear the end of it and rightly so... but Demokrats... they have done a masterful job at lying about their KKK.
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
Except that i never claimed they didn't have the right to speech or the right to self defense, so i was never eating ****.

VM just figured out his own argument was a strawman and somehow thought that was my problem, lol...
Click to expand...
Let me give that back to you, YOUR style...

YOU support the KKK. Why do you support the KKK? Why are you rushing in to defend the KKK? And why do you lack the integrity to just be honest about your position and instead feel the need to make everything racial...even things YOU agree with? And...one more time...why do you support the KKK?

Seriously...how many times on this site have you made racial allegations of people that have the EXACT SAME position you have?

Bite...chew, swallow, pal. You know the drill. You've known throughout this thread it was coming. Don't worry...as often as it happens to you, I suspect you will acquire a taste for it if you havent already.
 
dimensionallava said:
you sure about that?
Click to expand...

Yes.

From:The Democrat Race Lie - Black & Blonde Media

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states:
“I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became the Democrat Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on black people, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to blacks in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of blacks

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other blacks in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to ALL Americans regardless of race

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of blacks against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for black voters

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democrat Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed blacks and all those who supported them

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, black Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto is murdered by Democrat Party operative. His military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
More...

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, black Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto is murdered by Democrat Party operative. His military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democrat efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled blacks to vote

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democrat Party’s refusal to permit voting by blacks

May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing black voter registration by 86%

February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, black Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP

May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no

August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures

January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster

June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans

October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention

June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country

August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation

June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it
Click to expand...
 
...more...
September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education

November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel

March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation

June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law

November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President

September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act

September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools

May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats

May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 black schoolchildren marching for their civil rights

September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School

June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who served in the Senate until his death in 2010

June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed. (He was featured on the cover of TIME magazine for the effort)

August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor

And let’s not forget the words of liberal icon Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood…

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population….
Click to expand...
...and it continues, but you get the message.

The Republicans have a perfect record... the Democrats... well... they've been a thorn in the side of black Americans for more than 150-years.

Now... how does this distortion happen? A wholly corrupt and irresponsible press.
 
Old-Democrats.org-website.jpg

The blatant lying continues...
 
On Southern Democrats... and the turn to the GOP... was not race based... as the Demokrats would like many to believe.


 
VanceMack said:
Where does it end? And what is the appropriate defense against someone calling you a name?

Germany outlawed the Nazi party. It didn't help. You can't stop racism. You can't stop bigotry. You CAN allow people to grow beyond bigotry and racism. It's been said before in this thread. Suppose those people that attacked the KKK members hadn't been there and invested in committing an assault? Those 6 people would have played to an empty house. At best they would have burned through a half a tank of gas and killed a few hours. Instead we have this.

Not sure what end you see. Do blacks get arrested for calling each other nigga? Do they get arrested for calling someone a cracker or even white boy? And it's not like blacks and Latinos hit it off...so how many of those people do we arrest? Or do we just say hey...you know what? **** it. Throw down. Someone insults you...kick his ass. If they die...oh well. Someone gives you the finger, run his ass off the road. Handle your business.

I just really have a hard time seeing your end game.
Click to expand...

The KKK doesn't just call people names. They're not just a little popping-off-at-the-mouth group of hecklers.

They've killed people at the worst and demonized people at the best. That's far more dire than simply calling someone names. They could avoid using that term all they'd like - it won't alter who they are and what they represent.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
The KKK doesn't just call people names. They're not just a little popping-off-at-the-mouth group of hecklers.

They've killed people at the worst and demonized people at the best. That's far more dire than simply calling someone names. They could avoid using that term all they'd like - it won't alter who they are and what they represent.
Click to expand...
I understand that but thats not relevant to the free speech argument. Acts of physical violence are already against the law. Coordinated acts of physical violence are similarly against the law.

You cited two examples, both involving insults. I guess Im still not sure what you are suggesting. Surely you dont support criminalizing speech...so...still not seeing the end game.
 
VanceMack said:
I understand that but thats not relevant to the free speech argument. Acts of physical violence are already against the law. Coordinated acts of physical violence are similarly against the law.

You cited two examples, both involving insults. I guess Im still not sure what you are suggesting. Surely you dont support criminalizing speech...so...still not seeing the end game.
Click to expand...

Well the free speech argument doesn't particularly work here seeing as how the First Amendment specifically talks about what the government can and can't do.

By that logic, one should be able to spew bigoted language in the work place and not get fired, because wouldn't that be an infringement on their freedom of speech?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Well the free speech argument doesn't particularly work here seeing as how the First Amendment specifically talks about what the government can and can't do.

By that logic, one should be able to spew bigoted language in the work place and not get fired, because wouldn't that be an infringement on their freedom of speech?
Click to expand...
One should be able to run their business as they choose.

And I agree. One of the things government CANNOT DO is make a law banning speech. Criminalizing speech. We agree....that would just be completely reprehensible.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Well the free speech argument doesn't particularly work here seeing as how the First Amendment specifically talks about what the government can and can't do.

By that logic, one should be able to spew bigoted language in the work place and not get fired, because wouldn't that be an infringement on their freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

Shh... VM won't recognize logic.

The irony of condemning people for condemning the KKK because condemnation is anti-free speech is completely lost on him. Apparently, the KKK has the right to free speech, but i don't, according to VM.
 
VanceMack said:
One should be able to run their business as they choose.

And I agree. One of the things government CANNOT DO is make a law banning speech. Criminalizing speech. We agree....that would just be completely reprehensible.
Click to expand...

So you are saying its okay if a business allows its employees to make comments and engage in activities that other employees find harmful, unproductive, and harassing?

Glad to see we agree what the free speech argument doesn't apply to this situation regarding Anaheim.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
So you are saying its okay if a business allows its employees to make comments and engage in activities that other employees find harmful, unproductive, and harassing?

Glad to see we agree what the free speech argument doesn't apply to this situation regarding Anaheim.
Click to expand...
Personally? Sure. I think business should be able to operate however they want. I think people should be free to discriminate. I think people should be able to sell to who they want to sell to and buy from who they want to buy from and rent to who they want to, etc etc etc.

And no...the Free Speech argument doesnt apply in Anaheim. ALL that applied in Anaheim was that one group was legally engaged in or attempting to engage in a legally secured protest and that group was criminally attacked. That IS all that matters.
 
VanceMack said:
Personally? Sure. I think business should be able to operate however they want. I think people should be free to discriminate. I think people should be able to sell to who they want to sell to and buy from who they want to buy from and rent to who they want to, etc etc etc.

And no...the Free Speech argument doesnt apply in Anaheim. ALL that applied in Anaheim was that one group was legally engaged in or attempting to engage in a legally secured protest and that group was criminally attacked. That IS all that matters.
Click to expand...

Well your 60 year old, pre-civil rights views fit right in with the regressive party.
 
Absentglare said:
Well your 60 year old, pre-civil rights views fit right in with the regressive party.
Click to expand...
Actually they fit perfectly well with the Constitution and the Libertarian Party.
 
VanceMack said:
Actually they fit perfectly well with the Constitution and the Libertarian Party.
Click to expand...

The American Libertarian Party okay but only because they're don't understand the concept of liberty.

The constitution, absolutely not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom