๐—ฃ๐—ถ๐˜๐˜† ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ก๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป

WCM said:
Just for gits and shiggles, can you tell me who was leading the Republican party in 1826?
Click to expand...
The Republican Party was not formed until 1854, decades after 1826. The Democratic Republican Party was dissolved in 1825, so not around in 1826, and was not the Republican Party.

WCM said:
Andrew Jackson
Click to expand...
Jackson never had a leadership role in the Democratic Republican Party, which is why he formed the Democratic Party. It was the only party he ever led. The other breakaway was the National Republican Party, also known as the ANTI-Jacksonian Party, which obviously Jackson did not run.
 
Walt said:
The Republican Party was not formed until 1854, decades after 1826. The Democratic Republican Party was dissolved in 1825, so not around in 1826, and was not the Republican Party.


Jackson never had a leadership role in the Democratic Republican Party, which is why he formed the Democratic Party. It was the only party he ever led. The other breakaway was the National Republican Party, also known as the ANTI-Jacksonian Party, which obviously Jackson did not run.
Click to expand...
You can teach, but little Mattie is incapable of learning. Too much vodka under the bridge, so to speak.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's ass backwards. It is the Left that are the authoritarians every time. Stalin collectivized the farms and factories. He formed worker's Collectives, with trusted subordinates running them to dominate the economy.

It is the Left that are the control freaks.

Here's a scenario--thought experiment--for you:

A Leftist government creates universal, government run, healthcare. You pay nothing to use that system but do pay 50% of your earnings to subsidize it. The quality is indifferent and the service is poor.

Society as a whole decides by vote that the system sucks and wants it eliminated in favor of a market driven healthcare system.

The question to you is: What does government do in response to that vote? Do they disband and hand over control of a huge chunk of the economy, tens of thousands of jobs, etc., and privatize the system? Or do they proclaim they can make the current system better, ignore the popular vote, and raise taxes to 70% to pay for improvements in the current, government run, system even if it gets little or no better?

Which happens based on historical results?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure privatization and insurance are better.

profitizing health care has led medical authorities to denigrate preventive measures and lifestyle change.

doctors regularly lie about low carb truth, homeopathic and naturopathic remedies, and vaccines.

its not a wellness industry; its a sickness industry con job.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's ass backwards. It is the Left that are the authoritarians every time. Stalin collectivized the farms and factories. He formed worker's Collectives, with trusted subordinates running them to dominate the economy.

It is the Left that are the control freaks.

Here's a scenario--thought experiment--for you:

A Leftist government creates universal, government run, healthcare. You pay nothing to use that system but do pay 50% of your earnings to subsidize it. The quality is indifferent and the service is poor.

Society as a whole decides by vote that the system sucks and wants it eliminated in favor of a market driven healthcare system.

The question to you is: What does government do in response to that vote? Do they disband and hand over control of a huge chunk of the economy, tens of thousands of jobs, etc., and privatize the system? Or do they proclaim they can make the current system better, ignore the popular vote, and raise taxes to 70% to pay for improvements in the current, government run, system even if it gets little or no better?

Which happens based on historical results?
Click to expand...
why do people have to fly to mexico for stem cell therapy, asshole?
 
Jerry Mathers said:
I'm not sure privatization and insurance are better.

profitizing health care has led medical authorities to denigrate preventive measures and lifestyle change.
Click to expand...

Preventive medicine has proved expensive and unable to produce much in the way of useful results beyond getting regular check ups.
Jerry Mathers said:
doctors regularly lie about low carb truth, homeopathic and naturopathic remedies, and vaccines.

its not a wellness industry; its a sickness industry con job.
Click to expand...
The government does the same thing. The difference is when doctors do it they can be libel for damages. When the government does it, they say they're sorry.
 
Walt said:
The Republican Party was not formed until 1854, decades after 1826. The Democratic Republican Party was dissolved in 1825, so not around in 1826, and was not the Republican Party.


Jackson never had a leadership role in the Democratic Republican Party, which is why he formed the Democratic Party. It was the only party he ever led. The other breakaway was the National Republican Party, also known as the ANTI-Jacksonian Party, which obviously Jackson did not run.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, the origin of this side-topic was from when Owly-Yet-Unwise Woman tried to say that "the great switch" between Dem/GOP party racism started happening 200 years ago.

I was merely pointing out how much of a cultist gossip she is.

Did you see what I even wrote there? I was just a trick question for Owly, genius :LOL:
  1. Can you tell me who was leading the Republican party in 1826? I'll make it easy for you by giving you a multiple choice question. Was it:
    1. Bruce Williston the 1st
    2. Kenneth Logginstein
    3. Jerry Rice the 49th
    4. Andrew Jackson
FYI there was no GOP that year. It was started decades later. Get it? So the alleged "great switch" obviously didn't start before there was a GOP.

Does the name Bruce Williston the 1st sound a bit familiar? Kenny Logginstein? Jerry Rice the 49th? Or maybe Jerry Rice the 49er? :LOL: I love you, walt.
 
WCM said:
:LOL: OMG that's just PLAIN FKING STUPID :LOL:

200 years, owl?
...
Click to expand...
that was clearly rhetorical hyerbole in the same way people will say something long ago was 'like a thousand years ago'.

I think you understand that and are trying to nitpick and focus on the literal as you feel you cannot engage the core and accurate point she made.

Do you disagree that the Dem party and Republican party bases, that was largely constituted of the racist, mostly Southerns, switch parties, at the same time the more cosmopolitan, big city, mostly northerners did?

Can you engage that point or do you need you need to deflect from it?
 
QP! said:
that was clearly rhetorical hyerbole in the same way people will say something long ago was 'like a thousand years ago'.

I think you understand that and are trying to nitpick and focus on the literal as you feel you cannot engage the core and accurate point she made.

Do you disagree that the Dem party and Republican party bases, that was largely constituted of the racist, mostly Southerns, switch parties, at the same time the more cosmopolitan, big city, mostly northerners did?

Can you engage that point or do you need you need to deflect from it?
Click to expand...
getting blacks dependant on the dole is not far from being a plantation owner.

they also destroyed black families.

prior to desegration, blacks had their own separate economies.

white business owners didn't like that.

separatists can get along, ironically.

:truestory:
 
QP! said:
that was clearly rhetorical hyerbole in the same way people will say something long ago was 'like a thousand years ago'.
Click to expand...
It was clearly stupid, QP, not rhetorical, and you know that. If she had a real answer she would have given it, but you guys are so accustomed to getting caught lying that you're cavalier about it now.

Owly was just trying to chime in with some ridiculous propaganda that she heard, but she really had no clue how long ago the Civil Rights Act was passed or any of the circumstances around it, who really supported it, etc.

If you think that Owly is smart, why don't you direct me to a post where she said something intelligent, QP? I defy you to find just one post where she showed up with facts, stats or cites and made a salient point.

Not just in this thread, in any thread, ever...

The facts is that she's a dummy who regurgitates CNN talking points and that's the sum of her accomplishments, right? She's a good little foot soldier who's never afraid to chime in with lies and slander to support the cause.

It's actually Crepitus that needs you help right now, QP. I'm mopping the floor with that dummy all over this forum right now.
 
WCM said:
It was clearly stupid, QP, not rhetorical, and you know that. If she had a real answer she would have given it, but you guys are so accustomed to getting caught lying that you're cavalier about it now.
...
Click to expand...
Anyone who has a real answer does not try to divert and focus on someone saying 'that was a million years ago' thinking they are scoring the only points they will get by being literal.

you betray your entire point by doing so.
 
QP! said:
Anyone who has a real answer does not try to divert and focus on someone saying 'that was a million years ago' thinking they are scoring the only points they will get by being literal.

you betray your entire point by doing so.
Click to expand...
She didn't say a million years ago, dummy.

She said 200 years ago, because that made more sense to her than 60 years ago, and she had no clue about the actual start of the farcical "racism party-swap theory".

A lot of Dems that were in their racist congress and the senate before 1964 just left in the 2000s, so the "late 60s" talking point doesn't make a lot of sense to her, right?

Eg, Exalted Cyclops/Dem Senator Byrd was in the senate from 1959 to 2010, right?

He was a KKK bigshot who ,not surprisingly, joined the official party of the KKK and then filibustered against the Civil Rights Act, but somehow Byrd and all the other racists stayed there and the racism magically swapped parties???? That's the actual swap theory :laugh:... Racism instantly or quickly transferred to the party that tried to get the civil rights act passed for 20 years up to that point, while all the senators and congressmen from each party stayed where they were :laugh:

And how exactly did Exalted Cyclops Byrd go from "racist that was filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Bill" to humanitarian? Was it a gift from God? :unsure:

I will give Owly credit, because her theory makes more sense than the Dems' story, even though the GOP didn't officially exist yet at that point.
 
WCM said:
She didn't say a million years ago, dummy.

She said 200 years ago, because that made more sense to her than 60 years ago, and she had no clue about the actual start of the farcical "racism party-swap theory".
...
Click to expand...
No one uses a round number like 200 years if their goal is to be precise or accurate as you are trying to pretend @ThatOwlWoman was doing. You would say 193 or 165 years ago or whatever you mistakenly thought it was. But to just throw out 200 or 1000 or 1million years ago is ballparking it is a long LONG time ago in a generic way. It is very normal to not google the exact year and just say hundreds of years ago, 1000 years ago, 1 million years ago, etc.

But as i said, you cannot debate the points and so...

Anyone who has a real answer does not try to divert and focus on someone saying 'that was a million years ago' thinking they are scoring the only points they will get by being literal.

you betray your entire point by doing so.
Click to expand...
 
QP! said:
No one uses a round number like 200 years if their goal is to be precise or accurate as you are trying to pretend @ThatOwlWoman was doing. You would say 193 or 165 years ago or whatever you mistakenly thought it was. But to just throw out 200 or 1000 or 1million years ago is ballparking it is a long LONG time ago in a generic way. It is very normal to not google the exact year and just say hundreds of years ago, 1000 years ago, 1 million years ago, etc.

But as i said, you cannot debate the points and so...
Click to expand...
you're really involved in an important discussion now.

so deep.
 
Jerry Mathers said:
you're really involved in an important discussion now.

so deep.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY what WCM wants. When you have no point to make try and nitpcik something trivial and meaningless, that ignores the core point being made, and claim that as some type of win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top