This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 08/06/2002 1:02:17 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war. |
Posted on 08/04/2002 8:30:36 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
That is because you were sober.
Far right? Whos asking for far right...I'd settle for RIGHT period!
Define that.
I hope you have a nice pair of hip-waders. It's deep in here, as those of us who watched the whole thing go down know.
Actually, I understood you - I was just using your statement to highlight my point. I don't know what the AM saw, but we saw the whole thing, and I think it's our responsiblity to make sure the truth isn't distorted by individuals whose primary goal and purpose for being here seems to be protecting the offender and spreading a benign version of the story. Thanks to you, that's happening.
That bad huh??
I did enter into an argument with you where you made certain claims that I asked you to substantiate...you never did, and instead left the discussion.
Posted by Twodees to Luis Gonzalez
On News/Activism
"The Klan is blamed on Southerners for good reason.
Nope, there's no connection wahtsoever between the modern day KKK and the paramilitary organizations of the military occupation the South which were all referred to as klan by the press. The modern KKK was formed by northerners and became a national organization based in the north in the early 20th century. Indiana, Michigan and Illinois are still big KKK strongholds. There's more KKK activity up there than in the South. Naturally, you prefer the liberal media's version of the "truth". At least you remain true to form.
Posted by Twodeesto Luis Gonzalez Aug 1 1:53 PM
"They go by the same name today as they did then, by the same name, they dress the same way, they hold the same principles, and they the promote the same ideals."
No, Mr. newcomer to these shores, there were a lot of different names which the newspapers and magazines of the time referred to as the klan no matter what the actual name was, the had an entirely different aim then than they do today, the uniforms were invented for the new national organization formed by yankees, because the old paramilitary organization used nothing but bedsheets and flour sack masks.
Posted by Twodees to Luis Gonzalez
Sure, Lulu. I'm a "defender of the klan" and you're a "conservative". As usual, you forget what the argument is about and wander off grabbing up off subject BS to make a point that doesn't even relate to what I said.
Today's klan has no connection with the original resistance groups of 1866-67. None. Period. Also, most of the activity of today's klan is in northern states. The KKK was dead until it was revived by yankees in the midwest. Today's klan is part of that organization, not part of the short lived, now disbanded organizations of the years immediately following the war. Refute that if you can. Naturally, you're far more likely spend hours refuting something I didn't say in this response than to refute what I asked you to refute, but if it keeps you occupied, then I've done my part.
Imbecile.
Posted by Luis Gonzalez to Twodees Aug 1 9:00 PM "The original klan was disbanded by its leader, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest in the 1860s. The yankee revival of a media created myth about the reconstruction era klan took place in the early 20th century."
"Around the time of World War Iqv a new Ku Klux Klan, patterned after the original one, made its appearance. The resurgent group began in Georgia, where William J. Simmons dedicated it at a cross-burning on Stone Mountain on Thanksgiving eve, 1915. The success of D. W. Griffith's epic film of the same year, Birth of a Nation, based on Thomas Dixon's novel The Clansman (1905), with its vivid portrayals of Radical Republican excesses, had helped to fan the flames of racial animosity, which had smoldered since Reconstruction. Also fueling the fire was a growing American nativist movement with its concomitant distrust of Catholics, Jews, African Americans,qv and other "foreign" elements. At first the new Klan grew slowly, but in the aftermath of World War I, the organization spread rapidly, not only in the South and Southwest, but also through the Midwest and to both coasts. At its height in the early 1920s the new Klan boasted some two million members. As before, its members or those posing as Klansmen perpetrated acts of violence, and although atrocities were committed across the nation, they were generally concentrated in the South. Some Texans were receptive to the Klan's angry and insular message, and by the early 1920s membership in the state organization numbered in the tens of thousands. Hooded legions paraded in Texas cities and towns, and cross-burnings, intended to show the power of the "invisible empire," became all too common."
http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/KK/vek2.html
Posted by Luis Gonzalezto Twodees
Aug 3 0:34 AM
Imbecile?
Tell you what, why don't we try something really novel, and YOU substantiate one damned thing that you claim.
Liar, spinner, and Klan apologist that you are, I am sure that you won't.
As I said, you can't substantiate a single thing you claim....
I hope you know what I meant by that. It's late. :)
Thanks to you and others like you, the truth isn't going to be buried by those determined to spin this into something it was not.
Yeah I "remember" threads all the time and when I log on. I can't find any of them. I remember when a cartoon of a maid followed Howlin from thread to thread with much "good natured" laughter. I remember a cartoon of Bush with a heavily "powdered" nose and that was all in good fun. Yeah but heaven forbid that is called "baiting". That is just satire.
Credibility? According to you I'm a liar anyway, though you don't know me. I'm not carrying water for anybody. I'm just tired of seeing everyone but one little clique of liberals hounded off of this forum. I'll tell you, though, Uncle Bill has worked hard gathering articles on government corruption. It's sickening to see his work attacked and belittled by people who don't give a tin plated crap about anything but party politics.
I'm not a long time participant here, but I used to surf in and read articles a few years ago, when conservatives who cared about exposing government corruption would respond to threads like this one with real interest. Now, what you get is texasforever answering that Reagan wasn't a conmservative so Bush doesn't have to be and blablabla and Howling calling in reinforcements to make fun of Uncle Bill for caring about corruption no matter who is in charge.
That's what ticked me off. You think we need to shut up about government growth and intrusion because there's a republican in office? If so, just change the name of the forum to Republican Underground. If ya'll want this to be an amen corner for the cult of celebrity created by the media for politicians, you'll have to put up with some criticism until you get all of us old conservative rowdies rounded up and shipped off.
You are a boor.
in case you need to look that up
Well, thankfully, there are many others who are willing to risk their status to stand up for the truth. I'm just one of several, and probably the least articulate of all of them. Thank you for the encouraging post.
Not really. There is no regulation, or rule that dictates that he argue his position with every poster. Others do the same. No big deal to me.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.