• 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!

Obama threatened, called 'monkey' by ex-Carson council candidate

VanceMack said:
Thats why liberals lose their mind whenever minorities demonstrate through hard work that they can achieve success...threatens that whole balance of power thing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely goddamn right!
 
apdst said:
Ok...post the evidence. Shouldn't be a problem.
Click to expand...

Are you saying NONE left the party due to racism?

Let's not play a game until we know what it is, and whether there's any point to it.
 
misterman said:
Are you saying NONE left the party due to racism?

Let's not play a game until we know what it is, and whether there's any point to it.
Click to expand...

Shawl ain't. However, I'm still waiting for the evidence that the Democrats that switched parties did so because they were racists and wanted to be a member of the more racist party.
 
apdst said:
Shawl ain't. However, I'm still waiting for the evidence that the Democrats that switched parties did so because they were racists and wanted to be a member of the more racist party.
Click to expand...

To say they left their party to avoid blacks, and avoid being part of a party where they had to share power with blacks, isn't the same as saying they wanted to be in a "more racist" party.
 
misterman said:
To say they left their party to avoid blacks, and avoid being part of a party where they had to share power with blacks, isn't the same as saying they wanted to be in a "more racist" party.
Click to expand...

Oh, they left to avoid being in the same party with blacks? Got anything to support that?
 
apdst said:
Oh, they left to avoid being in the same party with blacks? Got anything to support that?
Click to expand...

Now you're getting into the accepted, undisputed history thing.

I'm sure you have an alternate history for why millions of whites suddenly switched parties?
 
apdst said:
No, he didn't. Do try and get with the program, please.
Click to expand...

Sure sounds like you've spent 4 pages denying what is an accepted fact and asking for some spurious standard of evidence.
 
misterman said:
Now you're getting into the accepted, undisputed history thing.

I'm sure you have an alternate history for why millions of whites suddenly switched parties?
Click to expand...

In that case, you shouldn't have any problem posting evidence proving it. yes?
 
Hatuey said:
Sure sounds like you've spent 4 pages denying what is an accepted fact and asking for some spurious standard of evidence.
Click to expand...

And, not single person has been able to post a single shread of proof. Go figger!!

I already know you're not going to do anything productive, so I won't waste my time asking.
 
apdst said:
In that case, you shouldn't have any problem posting evidence proving it. yes?
Click to expand...

Posting evidence from the internet is difficult, yes. It's a thing you find by reading books. There's plenty of discussion about it on blogs and news articles and stuff, but you probably won't accept that, since they also accept it as undisputed history. You're in "the earth is round" territory here, dude.
 
misterman said:
Posting evidence from the internet is difficult, yes. It's a thing you find by reading books. There's plenty of discussion about it on blogs and news articles and stuff, but you probably won't accept that, since they also accept it as undisputed history. You're in "the earth is round" territory here, dude.
Click to expand...

You et. al. claim to know exactly what's in the minds of the congress critters that switched from the Democrat to the Republican party post CRA.

I don't think I'm asking too much when I make a doc call. Since the information is all over, as you say, you should be able to post 4, or 5 links right away.

I know the Earth is round. Watch me prove it.

images


It should be just that easy for you. Yes?
 
apdst said:
You et. al. claim to know exactly what's in the minds of the congress critters that switched from the Democrat to the Republican party post CRA.
Click to expand...

Not members of Congress - voters who elected them.

I know the Earth is round. Watch me prove it.

images


It should be just that easy for you. Yes?
Click to expand...

No. But the point is that you didn't need to prove the earth is round in the first place.

The fact that a fundamental shift in party loyalty occurred in the South on the part of whites as a result of blacks getting the vote is not disputed, nor is the fact that for many (not all) of those voters, racism was a factor in that is also not disputed. Read a history book (not the Internet).
 
apdst said:
You said that all Republicans mirrored the platform of the KKK. Sounds like your claiming that all Republicans are racists to me.
Click to expand...

maybe he's just following your lead:

apdst said:
...However, there is no escaping the similarities between the KKK and the Libbos, when it comes to minorities.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
...Ultimately, it's the Libbos that are more like the KKK, since both the KKK and the Libbos see blacks as being inferior and un-able to think for themselves.
Click to expand...
 
And, still no links. Eh?

Color me surprised!

Admit failure and that everything you've posted til now is nothing more than Libbo, "yooze-a-racist", propaganda.
 
apdst said:
Well, obviously, you don't know what primary source documentation is, because so far, you've only posted secondary cource documentation.

HINT: Opeds aren't primary source docs. :lamo
Click to expand...

Wiggen was referring to the official statements from the seceding Southern states and the official reason they gave for their leaving the union. These were indeed the most primary of primary sources and you have openly dismissed them and their statements many times in threads in the past.
 
Thunder said:
not only do you refuse to read links provided for you, but you now deny they were ever posted.

your dishonesty is sad...but expected.
Click to expand...

Your links only prove that there were Democrat congress critters that switched parties.
 
apdst said:
And, not single person has been able to post a single shread of proof. Go figger!!

I already know you're not going to do anything productive, so I won't waste my time asking.
Click to expand...

Please be specific. What evidence of what exactly are you challenging to be presented?
 
haymarket said:
Wiggen was referring to the official statements from the seceding Southern states and the official reason they gave for their leaving the union. These were indeed the most primary of primary sources and you have openly dismissed them and their statements many times in threads in the past.
Click to expand...

And, I provided several primary source docs that proved the average confederate soldier wasn't fighting just to preserve slavery, too.

I'm not surprised that you still haven't figgered that out.
 
haymarket said:
Please be specific. What evidence of what exactly are you challenging to be presented?
Click to expand...

That, "tons", of Democrats congress critters switched parties for racist reasons. Do try and keep pace with the rest of us, please.
 
apdst said:
And, I provided several primary source docs that proved the average confederate soldier wasn't fighting just to preserve slavery, too.

I'm not surprised that you still haven't figgered that out.
Click to expand...

In college, if you major or minor in history, you take classes on research. What you learn to do is to evaluate sources of information from the historical record. For example: if the discussion is about the reasons for southern states to secede from the union, the best possible primary source would be the official statements from each of the states in which the responsible authorities explained their reasons for doing so. No statement from any soldier comes even close. No one thousand statements from soldiers comes close.

Think of it this way: if you want to know why the Founders wrote the US Constitution, we have the official statement in their own words that all the signers gave their official okay to - its called the Preamble. Now somebody could go out and find individual statements from people at the time who might give their own personal opinion about why the Constitution was written BUT they would pale in significance and in importance to the Preamble of the US Constitution signed by the 55 delegates to the convention.

When you apdst are repeatedly presented with the official statements from the Southern seceding governments in which they state the importance of slavery over and over again and you then fall back on soldiers letters or statements or census figures, you are making a serious mistake in evaluating sources that would get you failed in any introductory class on the methods of historical research.
 
apdst said:
That, "tons", of Democrats congress critters switched parties for racist reasons. Do try and keep pace with the rest of us, please.
Click to expand...

So lets all understand the proof you want here: you want statement after statement from Democrat after Democrat in the South who will stand up and say they are formally switching parties because they are racists and the republican party better presents a more comfortable home for their racist beliefs?
 
haymarket said:
In college, if you major or minor in history, you take classes on research. What you learn to do is to evaluate sources of information from the historical record. For example: if the discussion is about the reasons for southern states to secede from the union, the best possible primary source would be the official statements from each of the states in which the responsible authorities explained their reasons for doing so. No statement from any soldier comes even close. No one thousand statements from soldiers comes close.

Think of it this way: if you want to know why the Founders wrote the US Constitution, we have the official statement in their own words that all the signers gave their official okay to - its called the Preamble. Now somebody could go out and find individual statements from people at the time who might give their own personal opinion about why the Constitution was written BUT they would pale in significance and in importance to the Preamble of the US Constitution signed by the 55 delegates to the convention.

When you apdst are repeatedly presented with the official statements from the Southern seceding governments in which they state the importance of slavery over and over again and you then fall back on soldiers letters or statements or census figures, you are making a serious mistake in evaluating sources that would get you failed in any introductory class on the methods of historical research.
Click to expand...

Three paragraphs and still no link?
 
haymarket said:
So lets all understand the proof you want here: you want statement after statement from Democrat after Democrat in the South who will stand up and say they are formally switching parties because they are racists and the republican party better presents a more comfortable home for their racist beliefs?
Click to expand...

I want evidence that supports the claim that, "tons", od Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party for racist reasons and that the Republican party was made up of racists at the time the CRA was passed. Those are the claims that have been made, I'm asking for proof; how you prove it is your business.
 
apdst said:
Three paragraphs and still no link?
Click to expand...

A link to what? Do you understand what I am explaining to you? You are a layperson with no training in methodology of historical research. I am attempting to educate you on the basic errors and mistakes you have made and continue to make in the evaluation of what you call primary sources.

perhaps a thorough reading of this will help you

http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/historical.htm

a general overview

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

and this will help educate you

http://rmc.ncr.vt.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/q7-historicalmethodsinforesources.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom