PrintSmith wrote: Not sure what the purpose of the kink (sic) is Z, other than to support my statement that is. It confirms the Republicans sought to open the society equally to blacks by having the federal government protect their rights to own property, to vote, to keep and bear arms and all the other privileges and immunities that citizens of the States enjoyed.
And my view of the Republican Party is not romanticized, it is historically accurate, up to and including the most recent history of the Union. There is a reason that one side of the aisle views what happened, and is happening, in Ferguson through a historical racial prism and the other side of the aisle views it through a prism of the individual incident. One side is color blind and looking at the content of the character of the people involved, the other is looking for victims and villains based on skin color alone.
You really have your blinders on, don't you, P? This is bordering on living in a fantasy world. Your "Republican" view of the party of honesty, values, integrity and/or any other descriptors you'd like to assign is pretty much as stated - romanticized.
Post Civil War America was far from being "united" by Republican radicals in Congress. That's the point of the link I provided. Present day Republicans? One look at some of the idiocy coming from members of the Republican Party should dispel that notion immediately.
HEARTLESS wrote: Love to keep seeing what goes on in the mind of Sybil, but....
Well, let's see......which emoticon might actually "fit" to express how completely ludicrous, inane, childish, immature.......shall I go on.......your comment is.
PrintSmith wrote: Not sure what the purpose of the kink (sic) is Z, other than to support my statement that is. It confirms the Republicans sought to open the society equally to blacks by having the federal government protect their rights to own property, to vote, to keep and bear arms and all the other privileges and immunities that citizens of the States enjoyed.
And my view of the Republican Party is not romanticized, it is historically accurate, up to and including the most recent history of the Union. There is a reason that one side of the aisle views what happened, and is happening, in Ferguson through a historical racial prism and the other side of the aisle views it through a prism of the individual incident. One side is color blind and looking at the content of the character of the people involved, the other is looking for victims and villains based on skin color alone.
You really have your blinders on, don't you, P? This is bordering on living in a fantasy world. Your "Republican" view of the party of honesty, values, integrity and/or any other descriptors you'd like to assign is pretty much as stated - romanticized.
Post Civil War America was far from being "united" by Republican radicals in Congress. That's the point of the link I provided. Present day Republicans? One look at some of the idiocy coming from members of the Republican Party should dispel that notion immediately.
Seriously Z, you want to color the entire party by the actions of "some" (your word, not mine) of its members? You don't see the ignorance contained in such an attempt?
PrintSmith wrote: Not sure what the purpose of the kink (sic) is Z, other than to support my statement that is. It confirms the Republicans sought to open the society equally to blacks by having the federal government protect their rights to own property, to vote, to keep and bear arms and all the other privileges and immunities that citizens of the States enjoyed.
And my view of the Republican Party is not romanticized, it is historically accurate, up to and including the most recent history of the Union. There is a reason that one side of the aisle views what happened, and is happening, in Ferguson through a historical racial prism and the other side of the aisle views it through a prism of the individual incident. One side is color blind and looking at the content of the character of the people involved, the other is looking for victims and villains based on skin color alone.
You really have your blinders on, don't you, P? This is bordering on living in a fantasy world. Your "Republican" view of the party of honesty, values, integrity and/or any other descriptors you'd like to assign is pretty much as stated - romanticized.
Post Civil War America was far from being "united" by Republican radicals in Congress. That's the point of the link I provided. Present day Republicans? One look at some of the idiocy coming from members of the Republican Party should dispel that notion immediately.
Seriously Z, you want to color the entire party by the actions of "some" (your word, not mine) of its members? You don't see the ignorance contained in such an attempt?
As you have also done with the Democratic Party, P. C'mon.
Difference being "some" vs "most". Most of the Democrats continue to see race as a pivotal issue "challenging" the Union today. Most Republicans don't see it as a pivotal issue. Some Democrats don't see it as pivotal and some Republicans do. There's your difference when the issue is stripped to its basic core.
PrintSmith wrote: Difference being "some" vs "most". Most of the Democrats continue to see race as a pivotal issue "challenging" the Union today. Most Republicans don't see it as a pivotal issue. Some Democrats don't see it as pivotal and some Republicans do. There's your difference when the issue is stripped to its basic core.
And you base this assertion on what factual evidence specifically?
Not related to the OP except by the title, I gotta wonder why none of the news articles I have seen regarding the explosion and house fire in Black Hawk this morning say anything about what the most likely use of the butane blamed for the explosion was?
I doubt that it was intended to heat the house, although it certainly did that, for a short time.
Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley
Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy
PrintSmith wrote: Difference being "some" vs "most". Most of the Democrats continue to see race as a pivotal issue "challenging" the Union today. Most Republicans don't see it as a pivotal issue. Some Democrats don't see it as pivotal and some Republicans do. There's your difference when the issue is stripped to its basic core.
And you base this assertion on what factual evidence specifically?
Does not the whole premiss of this thread support the democrats need race relations to continue to be an issue?
PrintSmith wrote: Difference being "some" vs "most". Most of the Democrats continue to see race as a pivotal issue "challenging" the Union today. Most Republicans don't see it as a pivotal issue. Some Democrats don't see it as pivotal and some Republicans do. There's your difference when the issue is stripped to its basic core.
And you base this assertion on what factual evidence specifically?
Does not the whole premiss of this thread support the democrats need race relations to continue to be an issue?
