Kaepernick supporters call for NFL boycott

[htownbrown]

Wonder if Indy gets burnt to the ground if they trade for B.O.?

[runyon27]

On 8/22/2017 at 7:02 PM, Tim Couch Pulls Out said:

You do realize that the ideologies of the parties switched in the mid 20th century, right?

The Republican Party of old was considered to be far more liberal on socioeconomic and civil rights issues and favored big government, while the Democratic Party in that time was more conservative.

So yeah, it was founded by some Democrats...though the Democratic Party of that era is actually the Republican Party of today. 

 

Nice try, though.

This is factually incorrect, the Republican party has always been the party business and the Democrats have always been associated as the workers party. People say they switched to make them feel better inside. There is not historical basis for this, I have heard this argument many times. If the Republican party was the big government party in the first half of the 20 century how do you explain the New Deal? Or how do you explain the Republican President in the 20s saying the business of America is business. Sounds like a very contemporary Republican thing to say. No switch happened, it belies the historical evidence.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

6 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

so you counter with your politifact, your liberal version of the Blaze? I'm still disgusted you inferred that you need

"verification" before you believe any veteran of our military was really a veteran. But you don't need verification that

the doofacrapic party was the racists, and republicans left because of that. Try some freaking history:

 

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/3554

History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party. From the formation of the Democratic Party in 1792 to the Civil Rights movement of 1960's, Congressional records show the Democrat Party passed no specific laws to help Blacks, every law that they introduced into Congress was designed to hurt blacks in 1894 Repeal Act. The chronicles of history shows that during the past 160 years the Democratic Party legislated Jim Crows laws, Black Codes and a multitude of other laws at the state and federal level to deny African Americans their rights as citizens.

History reveals that the Republican Party was formed in 1854 to abolish slavery and challenge other racist legislative acts initiated by the Democratic Party.

In keeping with the mindset of a conservative during a debate, you're spewing lie after lie just to drown out the fact that you're wrong as actual fuck.

Your history checks out to a small extent but the one big issue you glossed over is that the Democratic Party of that era was a socially Conservative party who favored small government and was prevalent in the south.

Doesn't that, uh....sound familiar?

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-democrats-were-the-party-of-the-ku-klux-klan-and-slavery/

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

6 hours ago, runyon27 said:

This is factually incorrect, the Republican party has always been the party business and the Democrats have always been associated as the workers party. People say they switched to make them feel better inside. There is not historical basis for this, I have heard this argument many times. If the Republican party was the big government party in the first half of the 20 century how do you explain the New Deal? Or how do you explain the Republican President in the 20s saying the business of America is business. Sounds like a very contemporary Republican thing to say. No switch happened, it belies the historical evidence.

There's an overwhelming amount of historical data that proves you wrong. 

Regardless of who the party has been "for", the political ideologies of each party have switched multiple times. As it currently stands, the platform of today's Democrats more closely aligns with that of the Whig Republicans of yesterday, while today's Republican Party more closely aligns with the Southern Democrats.

Voting maps and party platforms show clear evidence of the switch, I don't really see how you can disregard it as a myth when the facts are plain as day.

[calfoxwc]

" In keeping with the mindset of a conservative during a debate, you're spewing lie after lie just to drown out the fact that you're wrong as actual fuck." TimCouchTapsOut

You can take your politifact bs and shove it. And you can take your asswholish "liar" crap

and shove it further. You are just WRONG.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

 

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

9 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

" In keeping with the mindset of a conservative during a debate, you're spewing lie after lie just to drown out the fact that you're wrong as actual fuck." TimCouchTapsOut

You can take your politifact bs and shove it. And you can take your asswholish "liar" crap

and shove it further. You are just WRONG.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/

 

 

Wait, you mean to tell me that the conservative propaganda rag that is known as The Federalist tried to call out a moderate publication for being biased toward liberals?

Wow, I'm shocked! 

I can can see why you voted for Trump. I'm surprised you can tell your "asswhole" from a "whole" in the ground.

 

[calfoxwc]

So, couch-

here is a history lesson, and STFU, you are blathering out your ass. I'd rather talk about the BROWNS.

dammit. that is why we have a POLITICAL FORUM. But the worst of liberals

always demand a larger audience.

http://russp.us/racism.htm

 

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

[calfoxwc]

can somebody MOVE this to the political forum?

[Westside Steve]

1 minute ago, calfoxwc said:

can somebody MOVE this to the political forum?

Plenty of shit over there this is actually a Cleveland Browns football related topic.

WSS

 

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

10 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

So, couch-

here is a history lesson, and STFU, you are blathering out your ass. I'd rather talk about the BROWNS.

dammit. that is why we have a POLITICAL FORUM. But the worst of liberals

always demand a larger audience.

http://russp.us/racism.htm

 

A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.

Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.

Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.

Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.

Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.

Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!

Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.

Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.

Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?

Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.

Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.

Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.

Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!

It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.

But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.

Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.

A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.

In the 1960s the Democratic Party changed its strategy for dealing with African Americans. Thanks to earlier Republican initiatives on civil rights, blatant racial oppression was no longer a viable political option. Whereas before that time Southern Democrats had overtly and proudly segregated and terrorized blacks, the national Democratic Party decided instead to be more subtle and get them as dependent on government as possible. As LBJ so elegantly put it (in a famous moment of candor that was recorded for posterity), "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." At the same time, the Democrats started a persistent campaign of lies and innuendo, falsely equating any opposition to their welfare state with racism.

From a purely cynical political perspective, the Democratic strategy of black dependence has been extremely effective. LBJ knew exactly what he was doing. African Americans routinely vote well over 90 percent Democratic for fear that Republicans will cut their government benefits and welfare programs. And what is the result? Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs, the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent, but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent.

Most major American city governments have been run by liberal Democrats for decades, and most of those cities have large black sections that are essentially dysfunctional anarchies. Cities like Detroit are overrun by gangs and drug dealers, with burned out homes on every block in some areas. The land values are so low due to crime, blight, and lack of economic opportunity that condemned homes are not even worth rebuilding. Who wants to build a home in an urban war zone? Yet they keep electing liberal Democrats -- and blaming "racist" Republicans for their problems!

Washington DC is another city that has been dominated by liberal Democrats for decades. It spends more per capita on students than almost any other city in the world, yet it has some of the worst academic achievement anywhere and is a drug-infested hellhole. Barack Obama would not dream of sending his own precious daughters to the DC public schools, of course -- but he assures us that those schools are good enough for everyone else. In fact, Obama was instrumental in killing a popular and effective school voucher program in DC, effectively killing hopes for many poor black families trapped in those dysfunctional public schools. His allegiance to the teachers unions apparently trumps his concern for poor black families.

A strong argument could also be made that Democratic support for perpetual affirmative action is racist. It is, after all, the antithesis of Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society. Not only is it "reverse racism," but it is based on the premise that African Americans are incapable of competing in the free market on a level playing field. In other words, it is based on the notion of white supremacy, albeit "benevolent" white supremacy rather than the openly hostile white supremacy of the pre-1960s Democratic Party.

The next time someone claims that Republicans are racist and Democrats are not, don't fall for it.

 

You are literally too fucking stupid to argue with.

Best part is - I'm not even a liberal. 

I just recognize when hypocritical dumbasses can't fucking understand basic logic. 

[TexasAg1969]

Political Board Please. This board should stay clean for discussing football only, not off the field politics that involve football players.

Same for the 11 (12) thread. Move it too.

This football board is supposed to be a refuge when you get sick of politicians of whatever persuasion.

[Unsympathetic]

Might want to include the Southern Strategy within your rant.  But, of course, that would prove you to be wrong, calfox, so I expect nothing less than cherry-picking and strawmen from you.  How conservative of you to select "deliberate lack of intellectual honesty" over "actual historical context" every time!

 

Here's the reality: Yes, Democrats used to be racist -- and when those policies got overtly challenged nationally within the party, the same old racist southern D's formed the Dixiecrat wing [still within the D name] whose entire platform was maintaining Jim Crow laws.  The leader of the Dixiecrats? Strom Thurmond, who soon switched to the R party along with the other dixiecrats.  And then the Republicans decided to make Thurmond plus the Southern Strategy focus as its...... entire platform basically the day after the civil rights act became law.  This isn't that hard..

 

When you can't accept reality on reality's terms, there's a conservative website destined to make you happy!

 

Of course Republicans are racist both individually and when creating national policy. That's the draw of becoming a Republican - you're better than them, so it couldn't be racist when you do it!

[TexasAg1969]

Thanks for moving both Mods.

[runyon27]

6 hours ago, Tim Couch Pulls Out said:

There's an overwhelming amount of historical data that proves you wrong. 

Regardless of who the party has been "for", the political ideologies of each party have switched multiple times. As it currently stands, the platform of today's Democrats more closely aligns with that of the Whig Republicans of yesterday, while today's Republican Party more closely aligns with the Southern Democrats.

Voting maps and party platforms show clear evidence of the switch, I don't really see how you can disregard it as a myth when the facts are plain as day.

Sure because no such evidence exist or has been presented in this discussion I might add. The core idealogoies of both parties pretty much remain the same over time. You may refer to the wikipedia entry on the Republican party and you will see that the party of big business has been that way for a long long time. The myth is perpetuated by Democrats to have them try to cope of the what Democrats have done in the past.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

[calfoxwc]

liberals go with "you be stuped" or something when they are wrong. I just showed sofasucker he was wrong about

his politico being the end all nonbiased reference. Then I showed him history. Then umsump, also a liberal ,

goes all wet into Egypt....

   These liberals get too emotional to discuss anything. They just get mad and won't admit

they aren't geniuses of the galaxy.

 

 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Liberals suck.

[OldBrownsFan]

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

liberals go with "you be stuped" or something when they are wrong. I just showed sofasucker he was wrong about

his politico being the end all nonbiased reference. Then I showed him history. Then umsump, also a liberal ,

goes all wet into Egypt....

   These liberals get too emotional to discuss anything. They just get mad and won't admit

they aren't geniuses of the galaxy.

 

 

Taking the argument up to the present:

Road to urban despair paved by Democrats

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-urban-unrest-kass-0821-20160819-column.html

 

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

11 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

liberals go with "you be stuped" or something when they are wrong. I just showed sofasucker he was wrong about

 

5 hours ago, Tim Couch Pulls Out said:

 

Best part is - I'm not even a liberal. 

 

 

You couldn't even comprehend a sentence comprised of 8 words, as evidenced by the fact that you went ahead and called me a liberal only a few short hours later. Why should I expect you to understand anything? The fact that you were able to get out of bed and not shit your pants this morning is astounding to me.

Your arguments thus far have been - 

1. Democrats started the KKK.

This is true, because in general the Democrats of yesterday are more closely aligned with the Republicans of today. 

Don't believe me? Here's a handful of articles that explain it. Some of them even use small words so your tiny baby brain can understand it -

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rich-rubino/democratic-and-republican-ideologies_b_3432210.html

http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party

2. TheBlaze and The Federalist aren't conservative-biased publications.

This is extremely false. So false that I'm not going to waste my time with it. 

3. Politifact is a liberal biased publication. 

This is also false. The website is operated by the Tampa Bay Times and doesn't promote their own agenda, instead only reviews claims made by both parties. Reviews are made by their journalists on staff, who fall on both sides of the aisle.

Do Conservatives have a higher percentage of false claims by Politifact? Absolutely. Because they are wrong more often than not. That doesn't make Politifact a liberal bias publication, it just goes to show you that more Conservatives speak out of their ass than their liberal counterparts. 

You quote an article from another conservative publication as fact, yet I don't even think you understand the graphs you linked to....which is unsurprising.

Trump's entire cabinet is crumbling around him, public figures are calling for his impeachment and his presidency to date is one of the worst presidencies in American history and yet you sit here and say "oh, but liberals blah blah blah". 

The fact of the matter is that we have an idiot in the White House because idiots like you voted for him. 

I don't come to your farm and tell you how to jack off a cow, don't come here and try to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

Now I'll leave you all to jack each other off while thinking about Donald Trump.

[Clevfan4life]

6 hours ago, Tim Couch Pulls Out said:

 

You are literally too fucking stupid to argue with.

Best part is - I'm not even a liberal. 

I just recognize when hypocritical dumbasses can't fucking understand basic logic. 

Welcome to the poly board. If u thought thry didnt know shit about football just wait, mind will be blow 

[OldBrownsFan]

8 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

Welcome to the poly board. If u thought thry didnt know shit about football just wait, mind will be blow 

Cleve I have been a political junkie (not proud of it) since age 13 when I stayed up all night listening to election returns of the Nixon/Humphrey presidential race on a transistor radio in 68. I respect the football knowledge of many posters on the Browns Board and I am impressed with many who post on football including yourself but not buying your superior knowledge here on the political side. 

 

[Westside Steve]

9 minutes ago, Tim Couch Pulls Out said:

 

 

You couldn't even comprehend a sentence comprised of 8 words, as evidenced by the fact that you went ahead and called me a liberal only a few short hours later. Why should I expect you to understand anything? The fact that you were able to get out of bed and not shit your pants this morning is astounding to me.

Your arguments thus far have been - 

1. Democrats started the KKK.

This is true, because in general the Democrats of yesterday are more closely aligned with the Republicans of today. 

Don't believe me? Here's a handful of articles that explain it. Some of them even use small words so your tiny baby brain can understand it -

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rich-rubino/democratic-and-republican-ideologies_b_3432210.html

http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party

2. TheBlaze and The Federalist aren't conservative-biased publications.

This is extremely false. So false that I'm not going to waste my time with it. 

3. Politifact is a liberal biased publication. 

This is also false. The website is operated by the Tampa Bay Times and doesn't promote their own agenda, instead only reviews claims made by both parties. Reviews are made by their journalists on staff, who fall on both sides of the aisle.

Do Conservatives have a higher percentage of false claims by Politifact? Absolutely. Because they are wrong more often than not. That doesn't make Politifact a liberal bias publication, it just goes to show you that more Conservatives speak out of their ass than their liberal counterparts. 

You quote an article from another conservative publication as fact, yet I don't even think you understand the graphs you linked to....which is unsurprising.

Trump's entire cabinet is crumbling around him, public figures are calling for his impeachment and his presidency to date is one of the worst presidencies in American history and yet you sit here and say "oh, but liberals blah blah blah". 

The fact of the matter is that we have an idiot in the White House because idiots like you voted for him. 

I don't come to your farm and tell you how to jack off a cow, don't come here and try to have an intelligent conversation.

 

Regardless of any other issues you are complaining about, there are actually some (apparently not including your new girlfriend Cleve) who realize you would actually jack off a bull not a cow if that were your desire.

Not that there's anything wrong with that but...

WSS

[calfoxwc]

1 hour ago, Tim Couch Pulls Out said:

Now I'll leave you all to jack each other off while thinking about Donald Trump.

Your insults only prove that I am correct. and, btw,

you whined two falsehoods:

and, you use the huffington post as one of your precious liberal "nonbiased" sources?

REALLY??? LOL LOL LOL LOL

tps://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party

2. TheBlaze and The Federalist aren't conservative-biased publications.

This is extremely false. So false that I'm not going to waste my time with it. 

3. Politifact is a liberal biased publication. 

I never said either one of those things. I complained that you dissed my sources, which of course, biased since'they actually post the truth you hate, and your sources never will... and then claimed politifact as your unbiased source,which is a giant crock of liberal crap. IT doesn't matter if a source is biased...is the content LEGIT? that is the questionliberals ignore, especially when it's THEIR biased sources.

I simply showed you a study that your politifact is absolutely biased toward the dems.

Sorry you are angry about being wrong. It happens with you liberals.

 

[calfoxwc]

Timmy Sofasucker:

A. You just proved to be a liberal - you went overboard in cya by your emotional enraged outburst

knee jerkie personal attacks. You think that proves your point? NOPE. You are all wet in Egypt.

B. And, as Steve correctly corrected you - seriously? You don't know that cows are female bovines,

and the bulls are the one with penises? SERIOUSLY ? and you call anybody ELSE "STUPID" ??? LOL

C. OH, wait. Sofasucker thinks that female cows can FEEL they are bulls, so he thinks trans cows

     have penises. Liberals don't have to make sense, they just have to emotionally knee jerk and feel

    better about themselves. At least for a little while.

 

 

[Clevfan4life]

Sofasucker....thats awesome. Parkinsons insults are best insults

[DieHardBrownsFan]

2 hours ago, Tim Couch Pulls Out said:

 

 

You couldn't even comprehend a sentence comprised of 8 words, as evidenced by the fact that you went ahead and called me a liberal only a few short hours later. Why should I expect you to understand anything? The fact that you were able to get out of bed and not shit your pants this morning is astounding to me.

Your arguments thus far have been - 

1. Democrats started the KKK.

This is true, because in general the Democrats of yesterday are more closely aligned with the Republicans of today. 

Don't believe me? Here's a handful of articles that explain it. Some of them even use small words so your tiny baby brain can understand it -

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rich-rubino/democratic-and-republican-ideologies_b_3432210.html

http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party

2. TheBlaze and The Federalist aren't conservative-biased publications.

This is extremely false. So false that I'm not going to waste my time with it. 

3. Politifact is a liberal biased publication. 

This is also false. The website is operated by the Tampa Bay Times and doesn't promote their own agenda, instead only reviews claims made by both parties. Reviews are made by their journalists on staff, who fall on both sides of the aisle.

Do Conservatives have a higher percentage of false claims by Politifact? Absolutely. Because they are wrong more often than not. That doesn't make Politifact a liberal bias publication, it just goes to show you that more Conservatives speak out of their ass than their liberal counterparts. 

You quote an article from another conservative publication as fact, yet I don't even think you understand the graphs you linked to....which is unsurprising.

Trump's entire cabinet is crumbling around him, public figures are calling for his impeachment and his presidency to date is one of the worst presidencies in American history and yet you sit here and say "oh, but liberals blah blah blah". 

The fact of the matter is that we have an idiot in the White House because idiots like you voted for him. 

I don't come to your farm and tell you how to jack off a cow, don't come here and try to have an intelligent conversation.

 

I'm sure your sucking Hillary's dick.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

Your insults only prove that I am correct. and, btw,

you whined two falsehoods:

and, you use the huffington post as one of your precious liberal "nonbiased" sources?

REALLY??? LOL LOL LOL LOL

tps://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Party

2. TheBlaze and The Federalist aren't conservative-biased publications.

This is extremely false. So false that I'm not going to waste my time with it. 

3. Politifact is a liberal biased publication. 

I never said either one of those things. I complained that you dissed my sources, which of course, biased since'they actually post the truth you hate, and your sources never will... and then claimed politifact as your unbiased source,which is a giant crock of liberal crap. IT doesn't matter if a source is biased...is the content LEGIT? that is the questionliberals ignore, especially when it's THEIR biased sources.

I simply showed you a study that your politifact is absolutely biased toward the dems.

Sorry you are angry about being wrong. It happens with you liberals.

 

Where did I say my sources weren't biased? I figured if you're gonna stack the deck one way, I can stack mine too.

Wait, are you telling me that you don't believe the information that comes from a "news" source with a clear bias?

But what about all the "facts" you posted a bit ago?  

Better watch out there, pal...you might just walk into another easily laid (and apparent) trap. 

You mistakenly are correlating insults with anger. That's not the case. You're just too easy to insult, so ill keep doing it. You see the insults and disregard the words I'm saying, digger yourself deeper and deeper holes each time. It's pretty fun.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

1 hour ago, calfoxwc said:

Timmy Sofasucker:

A. You just proved to be a liberal - you went overboard in cya by your emotional enraged outburst

knee jerkie personal attacks. You think that proves your point? NOPE. You are all wet in Egypt.

B. And, as Steve correctly corrected you - seriously? You don't know that cows are female bovines,

and the bulls are the one with penises? SERIOUSLY ? and you call anybody ELSE "STUPID" ??? LOL

C. OH, wait. Sofasucker thinks that female cows can FEEL they are bulls, so he thinks trans cows

     have penises. Liberals don't have to make sense, they just have to emotionally knee jerk and feel

    better about themselves. At least for a little while.

 

 

No, I don't claim to know shit about cows...because I'm not a farmer. 

Yet you somehow claim to know shit about politics and American History...even though you clearly don't. 

How about this - you stick to to what you know, I'll stick to what I know. 

[Westside Steve]

1 minute ago, Tim Couch Pulls Out said:

No, I don't claim to know shit about cows...because I'm not a farmer. 

Yet you somehow claim to know shit about politics and American History...even though you clearly don't. 

How about this - you stick to to what you know, I'll stick to what I know. 

You really don't have to be an agricultural professional to know which of the two between Cows and Bulls have penises. Just saying.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

that's another thing liberals do, they vent, go for personal insults, get rude...etc etc etc...

then they pretend so smugly that they made some kind of intellectual point.

nah. I ain't a buyin it, sofasucker. You are all wet in egypt, and it's nobody's fault cept yours.

So, here is some cool stuff from an expert, to show you are a fool for your crap:

Her name is Carol Swain. Professor of political science and law. At Vanderbuilt

University. It isn't me being an expert...it's me knowing the TRUTH because I learn from experts.  Just be

very quiet and let intelligent, educated people talk. and learn to freakin learn.