I didn’t see the hyperlinks. Why are you so hostile my brother?
Drew Brees is getting killed on social media for his opinion.
- Thread starter TramSpur
- Start date
The GBI knows. Once again, one man is doing a job as a civil servant. The other is jogging as a private citizen.
Comparing apples to tornadoes.
We have officially gone down the rabbit hole. Police killed by rioters but no acknowledgement or protest. Companies, football teams disregarding social distance to join protests. All minorities now officially are mistreated by any others. All must kneel down and make the police take awareness tests. We are all guilty, and must pay the price. How about looking at the official police stats before making false assumptions on brutality. Let's see protests for the police fallen and injured and the dead in Chicago.
Well your first story is completely false. That was based on a Politico article that had to be corrected not
once, but twice before they finally admitted they only ran it because the BANK OF CHINA hadn't responded to their inquiries before they ran an unsubstantiated rumor. After all Politico does have print deadlines they have to honor. It's Trump, why let facts get in the way of a good story. The Bank of China issued a statement that they had no loans at all with Trump or any of his business entities.
What Trump did as an international businessman before he was elected makes no difference to me.
All of Joe Biden's family, son, daughter, two brothers and his sister have gotten wealthy from Joe's shady deals while he was VP. I'll be glad to provide you the info. and the great thing is that because they all involved the federal govt. you can check public records for yourself.
Did you come up with that all by yourself? You are incredibly clever and funny, too bad the Algonquin Round Table isn't around any more they'd be begging you to sit in.
So you are saying that an international business man with Hotels and property all over the world actually trying to do business all over the world is somehow suspect and criminal... That's ludicrous... Joe Biden did it while he was VP.. Try again cause that dog won't hunt
Jogging in slacks cut off at the ankle after making a stop at a construction site that had been burglarized.
He then runs toward a man holding a shotgun; not pointing it at him, and proceeds to grab the barrel with one hand and throw punches with the other. It's odd behavior. I have been in a situation where a shotgun was pointed in my direction after the gentleman fired a warning shot to get my attention. I was with my brother-in-law on James Island artifact hunting with metal detectors in the early 70s. This man fired a shot in the air and told us not to move. That request and the belief that I'm not impervious to buckshot were enough to stop me. Not once while this man approached us did I think "when that sumbitch gets here I'm going to grab that gun barrel and beat the bejeezus out of him".
Now as far as the policeman is concerned, hell yeah if he's a civil servant he doesn't deserve mercy. I say let's hang that s.o.b. Thank you Clowney Posse that is an extremely compelling argument.
Please enlighten us on who started the KKK, Because if it wasn't Democrats, I've been poorly educated too.
Ohhhh. I see. You have no clue what's come out in the Arbery case and decided to defend the racist trash that killed him. Prior to running at 1 of 3 racists, he was HIT BY THEIR VEHICLE. So, what you've said here is that you would let someone hit you with their vehicle on purpose, allow them to turn around and come back to block you in with guns in hand and you would just mind your own business and keep jogging. Without defending yourself. Sure.
He didn't burglarize or vandalize the lot. WTF do his pants have to do with the color of trumps spray tan?
Ok, so here we have the perfect example of white privilege. You got a warning shot, my guy.
Correct. We are really starting to see the hypocrisy of the Right, here.
Freedom for me, but not for thee.
If a black guy hit a gun-toting 2A conservative Republican with his truck, he'd be dead.
A white guy literally hit a black man with truck, got out, called him a ******, and shot him dead.
He didn't go to jail for weeks.
Trayvon Martin was in the same situation as Arbery--pursed by an armed stranger while committing no crime. He attempted to defend himself, like Arbery, and was shot dead.
So are we supposed to defend ourselves or not? Am I supposed to stand my ground, or obey commands of anybody who threatens me? Or does that depend on the color of my skin?
WTF man. Good god.
Left out some details, didn't you? Martin was involved in a scuffle after he started it and was banging the other minority's head into the ground per the court. So put all the facts out there.
Good try there, Ace. The Bank of China sold it's share of the loan into a mortgage bond package, which it intended to do all along. It did this back in 2013. But everything I posted about it is 100% true - Trump DID take the $200 million loan from the State-controlled Bank of China, and he DOES still owe millions on that loan. And who exactly are those "investors" the Bank of China sold the debt to? Other Chinese entities?
But again, good try at the lame attempt of making my above post appear "completely" false, when nothing about my post is. You must binge-watch Fox News 24/7.....
Also, that wasn't the ONLY incident I listed. Is this seriously all you got?
Listen I used to run track and it's been a while so maybe jogging in slacks cut off at the ankle is what people are doing today. You said that I said all kinds of things that I think you may have made up. I'll make this a little simpler. I don't have any idea what happened. I know all of these cases like this take unusual twists and turns. The Michael Brown case is a good example. The myth that he said "HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT" has become accepted and you see it every day. He's been made a saint by the BLM supporters. The media made it a slam dunk case of murder. The city was burned down and a policeman's life was ruined.
The narrative you're giving of the events makes it sound like he was run over. He was hit by the side of atruck, he had no internal injuries. They do have him on surveillance cameras going to the construction site that had been vandalized. I don't think it's going to matter one way or the other, these guys are toast.
Nobody involved in one of these incidents will be involved no matter what evidence gets printed.
You're a piece of work. Know who else had been on the vandalized lot, the racist killers. But somehow they get a pass from you. If you ever get out of whatever hollow you roam, you'll find that millions of people go on lots like that every day, in neighborhoods just like this one in Ga. There's nothing wrong with his actions. But you've convinced yourself that since Arbery had been on the lot, and it was vandalized, he must have been the culprit. Sad commentary.
Bless your heart.
You said he owed China 200 million and it was due in 2022. Politico posted the retraction on their website,The Wall Street Journal wrote a scathing editorial about it, the Daily beast covered it. It was a lie. Period
So you're a legal accountant armed with all legal paper work and data from where the NY times? Say something so it must be true.
I told you I didn't know what happened, you're the one that knows everything with certainty. Love that Bless your Heart. Who are you Nikki Haley?
No, you made it clear what you know.
It's a great day in South Carolina.
Smiling faces, beautiful places.
I've heard so much about white privilege I didn't realize getting a warning shot was white privilege. I feel wealthier now. Thank you for pointing that out. If it makes you feel any better the guy said the next time there wouldn't be a warning shot, then told my brother-in-law he had already told him once to stay off of his property. I know, he got double white privilege.
Again, you're trolling, for only trollings' sake.
You'd HAVE to be uneducated to not know the political history of the two parties we have today:
Republican Party: spawned from the Whig Party around the election of Abraham Lincoln - originated from the Federalist Party, which supported John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington. Believed in strong federal government, a national bank, a federal army, and big business which was also perceived as being big government due to the belief in a strong effective government, but really they only wanted big government when it was needed to help with big business (industry, commerce, expansions into the West), but when it wasn't, they expected it to move out of the way.
Democratic Party: spawned from the Democratic-Republican Party, also known as the Republican Party when the Republican Party was known as the Whig Party, also known as the Jeffersonian Party, which supported Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe. Believed in strong state government and small federal government, no national bank, no federal army but state militia instead, and strong states' rights.
The Federalist Party dissolved in 1815, and the country's government was effectively a one-party government during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. In 1824 the Democratic-Republican Party split into the National Republican Party, which favored John Quincy Adams, and later became the Whig Party. The other split became the Democratic Party we know today, and supported Andrew Jackson.
Now. The Federalist/Whig/Republican Party variations were mostly located in the Northern states. They opposed slavery by consensus. The Democratic-Republican/Democratic Party was mostly located in the southern states, and they supported slavery as an institution.
Various events took place to change both political parties:
Theodore Roosevelt-Howard Taft rift: both Republicans, Roosevelt was a leader of the Progressive Era, while Taft was more conservative. After western expansion, the Republicans cooled on government oversight ("big government"), but Roosevelt believed in more federal control of big business such as breaking corporate trusts and establishing antitrust laws, ending political corruption such as graft, and prohibition, etc.
He was more passive however in the issue of racial equality, and preferred to take a slow approach in improving those areas. Taft took a more conservative approach in all regards, and Roosevelt, already a former president who served two terms but declined a third when he was strongly favored to have won in order to let Taft succeed him - Roosevelt hand-picked Taft and groomed Taft to continue his politically progressive platform, but was outraged to learn that Taft chose to go his own way - now chose to oppose Taft in the 1912 election, but lost, which resulted in Roosevelt leaving the Republican Party and creating his own political party, the Progressive Party.
Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a distant cousin to Teddy, was a Democrat. Coming upon the conclusion of The Great Depression, Roosevelt compared to his predecessor Republican Herbert Hoover was widely viewed as the more liberal candidate — and once his victory was secure, he lived up to that reputation.
Roosevelt's New Deal programs appealed to progressives and turned off conservatives. Soon a so-called New Deal coalition was formed comprised of blue collar workers, farmers and the poor in general, as well as intellectuals and various marginalized minority groups (racial, religious, ethnic).
While initially these groups gravitated toward the Democratic Party because of dissatisfaction with Hoover's performance and the perception that Roosevelt had done a better job of leading the party out of the Great Depression, Democratic leaders gradually became more open to innovative ideas and more sensitive to the plight of economically and socially marginalized people, as those constituencies were crucial to its hold on power.
The Democrats were still held back by the reactionary tendencies of its southern conservative wing — which, aside from some minor defections in 1928 to protest the nomination of the Catholic Smith as the party's standard bearer, remained loyal to the party — but within a generation that changed because...
Barry Goldwater and the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Of all the candidates to be nominated by a major party for president and ultimately lose, none have been as influential as Barry Goldwater, a Republican. The Arizona senator stood for keeping the government as small as possible, promoting the interests of business by dismantling the New Deal and being extremely hawkish in foreign policy to defeat communism generally and the Soviet Union specifically.
He was also, on racial issues, quite regressive, opposing the key civil rights legislation of the 1960s that allowed African Americans to attain full legal equality. These positions became the cornerstone of subsequent Republican ideology; the only element left out in 1964 was the brand of Christian right conservatism that would be infused into the party's philosophical brew in the 1970s.
Goldwater's positions didn't only make him popular within the South and among conservatives throughout the land; it simultaneously alienated the Republican Party's liberal wing, which had retained some measure of influence in the organization prior to the 1964 election. As a result, although Goldwater lost to President Lyndon Johnson in one of the biggest landslides of all time, he left an indelible imprint on the Republican Party, one that future Republican presidential nominees had to be mindful of in the future. From that election onward, the terms "liberal Republican" and "conservative Democrat" officially referred to rare birds in the American political aviary.
So, you see. The political parties changed their ideologies - the Republican, from anti-slavery and big business progressive liberalism, to anti-social liberalism, small government and conservatism. The Democrats, from pro-slavery, small business, small government conservatism, to pro-social progressive liberalism.
But it wasn't the people within those parties who suddenly "woke" up and changed their political and social perspectives. Rather, it was the people taking off their political affiliation lapel pins, and simply replacing them with pins from the other party.
So the Republicans of today, are the sons and grandsons of people who wore KKK hoods, who lynched blacks, and refused to serve them food or lodgings, or let them walk through the same doors as them. They are the great and great-great grandsons of men who enslaved blacks, and who called themselves Democrats in those days.
And the Democrats of today, are the sons, grandsons, and great-great grandsons of those blacks. I mean, you already know this. The VAST majority of African-Americans in this country today are Democrats. You know this as well as you know your own name. Yet you're somehow trying to convince people that you believe African-Americans of today would affiliate themselves with a political party that still and still has culpability in the enslavement of their ancestors??
Where the frick do I say Trump "owes" China 200 million??
I said a business Donald Trump owned part of was given a $212 million loan - as part of a total loan of $950 million that came from four lenders - from the State-owned Bank of China in 2012.
This is 100% true.
I said that that loan was due for repayment by 2022.
This is 100% true.
NONE of those media sources you named have stated that none of this is untrue. None of this is a lie. The only lies here are your lame, pitiful attempts at putting words into what I posted in order to make my post untrue, so you can call me a liar. Just a piece of shit move, son.....
Is this your opinion or did you copy and paste this from the liberal library .. either way it's garbage. When exactly in your mind did the Democrats officially in your eyes switch to Republican and Republican to Democrat.. What point in our nation's history?
You said "China loaned property in N.Y. that Trump co-owns more than $200 million dollars that comes due in 2022". I assume you wrote it like that to make people think Trump was being extorted by China, because he had a loan from the Bank of China hanging over his head that would come due in 2022. That's what Politico was implying.
The Bank of China was one of 4 lenders involved in the transaction that occurred in 2012 and they sold off the loan weeks after the deal was consummated. The Bank of China issued a statement it had no current loans to any of Donald Trump's businesses. The Daily Beast, hardly Trump-friendly wrote a summarization of 2 the retractions Politico made. Their article is dated 4/28/20 12:52 P.M. son.
Drew Brees learned a hard lesson. Liberals and leftist don't want ANY solution unless it is exactly what THEY want. He got scared and apologized. And probably a good idea, considering how dangerous, violent, and hateful the left is. They are the true fascist.
I'm sorry if you are unable to read. I already posted it in my above post. The mass turning point was during the final event I listed, Goldwater's presidential campaign and the Civil Right's Act under President Johnson in 1964. But those other, earlier events set the machine in motion for the Great Political Switch to take place.
The voting majority for the U.S. Presidency, for the state of South Carolina:
1900: W. Bryan (Dem.) - W. McKinley won
1904: A. Parker (Dem.) - T. Roosevelt won
1908: W. Bryan (Dem.) - W. Taft won
1912: W. Wilson (Dem.)
1916: W. Wilson (Dem.)
1920: J. Cox (Dem.) - W. Harding won
1924: J. Davis (Dem.) - C. Coolidge won
1928: A. Smith (Dem.) - H. Hoover won
1932: F. Roosevelt (Dem.)
1936: F. Roosevelt (Dem.)
1940: F. Roosevelt (Dem.)
1944: F. Roosevelt (Dem.)
1948: S. Thurmond (Dem.) - H. Truman won
1952: A. Stephenson (Dem.) - D. Eisenhower won
1956: A. Stephenson (Dem.) - D. Eisenhower won
1960: J. Kennedy (Dem.)
1964: B. Goldwater (Rep.) - L. Johnson won
1968: R. Nixon (Rep.)
1972: R. Nixon (Rep.)
1976: J. Carter (Dem.)
1980: R. Reagan (Rep.)
1984: R. Reagan (Rep.)
1988: G. H. W. Bush (Rep.)
1992: G. H. W. Bush (Rep.) - B. Clinton won
1996: B. Dole (Rep.) - B. Clinton won
2000: G. W. Bush (Rep.)
2004: G. W. Bush (Rep.)
2008: J. McCain (Rep.) - B. Obama won
2012: M. Romney (Rep.) - B. Obama won
2016: D. Trump (Rep.)
2020: ???
You can also look at other hardcore red states, and how they voted each presidential election, and see the same pattern - pre-1964 they voted stead-fastedly Democratic, and post-1964 they voted staunchly Republican, with the lone exception of Carter.
And this same pattern holds true pre-1900s as well. During the institution of slavery, the slave states voted solidly Democratic. Do you think all those slave-holders packed up and left the South for the North?? Of course, you might think that, because you're not very educated. No, they still reside in the South, and White Southerners today are the descendants of White slave-holding Southerners of the pre-20th Century years. They just don't call themselves Democrats anymore.
So, and I'm trying to get this straight Democrats were actually Republicans in 1964. My question is, I guess, when they voted for the civil Rights act are you saying that the Democrat that fillibustered the act was actually a Republican nowadays.. And the %Republicans that was higher than the Democrats that voted for the bill are now Democrats. But the Democrats that voted for the bill, more votes than the Republicans in favor, are the Republicans now? This is confusing, I'm going to move on.
If you can't read and comprehend discussion, then maybe you need to stay away from the big boy table, and go watch cartoons.
My initial post that you called a lie was in response to your post implying - and I note that YOU don't provide any facts or source for your lies - that Joe and Hunter Biden was somehow profiting from dealings with China.
Hunter may have profited from them, but there's no evidence - and none that you will try to dig up - that Joe Biden has. So I list and provide links to SOME - no where all, only some - of the dealings that Trump and his family has financially benefited from with China - some of which that has taken place while Trump was sitting in the Oval Office - and you call it a lie.
I made no assertion of Trump "owing" the Communist state of China anything, but only a moron (???) would fail to see how loan assistance with a large real estate venture would greatly benefit Trump's business stakes, EVEN IF the original lender sold that mortgage holding to someone else afterwards. It was still hundreds of millions of dollars loaned out. That still benefited Trump.
But you STILL have totally ignored the other items I listed. You don't do this trolling thing very well, do you?
Democrats are Democrats up to 1964. The Democratic party was the principle party of slave-holding southern states since the party's inception under Andrew Jackson, and is the oldest existing political party in the Union, despite what the Republicans say about the Grand Ole Party.
Johnson was a Democrat, like Kennedy before him. But also like Kennedy, Johnson saw the importance of civil equal rights, and the need for passing laws for equal rights. The southern Democrats - like Strom Thurmond, for example that was already given earlier in this thread - were adamantly against equal rights for the black citizens. They were once the political party that defended slavery and seceded from the Union and fought the Civil War over the issue (Lincoln was a Republican).
So in protest over Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Southern Democrats sort of revolted and left the Democratic party, and moved to the Republican party, in support of Goldwater who opposed the legislature.
It was basically kinda like the secession from the Union: the election of Lincoln, and his impending vow to abolish slavery, forced the slave states to secede from the Union, which started the war. In 1964, the perceived election of Johnson to the presidency and his vow to pass the CRA of 1964, forced the Democratic citizens of former slave states in the south and elsewhere, to sort of secede from the Democratic party, and move to the Republican party to support Goldwater.
Former African-American Republicans, poor farmers and lower-class citizens who moved to the Democratic party during the FDR days with his New Deal policies, became even more staunchly Democratic in support of Johnson and the CRA of 1964. When Johnson won the election and the Act was voted into law, that sealed the transition of both parties.
Again, the Republicans of today had totally zero to do with Lincoln's abolishment of slavery, like many of you trolls here have tried to claim. The Republicans of today were in the Democratic party of the slave-master's days, and are descendants of Democrats who voted to secede from the Union and fight the Union over the right to maintain the institution of slavery. That is 100% fact....
I'm sorry I guess I missed where you provided any substantiation or sources for any of those claims you made. Most were before Trump was in office and weren't illegal. I guess I must be a moron because I don't see The Bank of China being a 3 week creditor in 2012 points to any kind of Trump corruption. I don't have time to answer every scurrilous statement you make and frankly your thoughts aren't cogent enough to warrant a great deal of time addressing them.
Since you seem to be a big fan of Politico, there's an 8/20/19 article called Biden Inc. It goes a little easy on Biden but covers some of the shady deals he used to line family member's pockets. Then you might want to read Wall Street Journal article from 10/4/19 about BHR, Hunter Biden's scam, outlining some of the troubling dealings with AVIC, Chinese defense contractor, with a sterling reputation for among other things stealing secrets involving the F-35. You can also read the WSJ article on 9/23/19 entitled " Biden Family Business". They do concede that Biden isn't in the same league with the Clintons as far as monetizing influence. The distinction being Joe just wants to set his family up in "business", the Clintons are more in the shakedown artist category.
Boy, they brought him to his knees in a hurry. Gotta have guys to catch the ball I guess.
Yes, just like Thurmond, some of the democrats had not yet joined the Republican Party.
The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by LBJ in July. Thurmond voted against it as a Democrat earlier that year.
in Sept 1964, he switched parties to become a Republican. He didn’t do that for fun. Thurmond opposed the civil rights act and he saw the changing winds of the party.
Some of you probably shouldnt watch football or basketball...just stick to NASCAR.
So where did all the racist go.. Did they stay in the Dem party.. Other than Strom Thurmond, there wasn't a mass Exodus from the Democrat party..
Similar threads
