HorrorMovieFans.com

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/ ... 4110704640

Lots of DEMsplaining there. Maybe if his party didn't treat blacks like useful idiots for the last 50 years, they wouldn't need to leave. Obviously they are not feeling it.

If I was a democrat and my entire lifetime was spent as a member of a party telling me how I need help, like I am a child, while they deliver on no promises, I would leave too. I support my black brothers and sisters! Holla!

DEMsplaining = correcting BS by presenting facts? Did you even read the thread?

I did. He thinks calling himself a historian matters. He is a partisan hack. You don't think there are Republican historians with different tellings of history?

Facts matter. You have nothing.

The telling thing is you can't actually make an effort to defend the three things he disputes. Differing interpretations do not account for fake quotes and an incomplete representation of KKK political history. All you have is "well, some may disagree..." ...yeah, with what?

is misquoting and misrepresenting really any less partisan than debunking it? why isn't whoever wrote that up for blexit (candace owens?) a partisan hack?

zombie wrote:is misquoting and misrepresenting really any less partisan than debunking it? why isn't whoever wrote that up for blexit (candace owens?) a partisan hack?

No, because they confirm Foo's beliefs.

What matters is how black people feel. They don't need a historian to explain a revisionist history of the past, they need to get away from the users and abusers. They have heard the promises, they have witnessed the results.

Democrats standing in the middle of poor black ghettos talking about this and that. They have heard all the lies.

Foo wrote:What matters is how black people feel. They don't need a historian to explain a revisionist history of the past, they need to get away from the users and abusers. They have heard the promises, they have witnessed the results.

Democrats standing in the middle of poor black ghettos talking about this and that. They have heard all the lies.

"Revisionist history".

Explain.

Foo wrote:What matters is how black people feel. They don't need a historian to explain a revisionist history of the past, they need to get away from the users and abusers. They have heard the promises, they have witnessed the results.

Democrats standing in the middle of poor black ghettos talking about this and that. They have heard all the lies.

don't lie to people. blexit is lying to people. if there are things perpetrated by liberals today, show that? if conservatives have a better plan, show how? but don't lie to people. don't play revisionist history to favor conservatives, just as you don't want it done to favor liberals.

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:What matters is how black people feel. They don't need a historian to explain a revisionist history of the past, they need to get away from the users and abusers. They have heard the promises, they have witnessed the results.

Democrats standing in the middle of poor black ghettos talking about this and that. They have heard all the lies.

"Revisionist history".

Explain.

Revisionist History is when you rewrite history to reflect an opinion or agenda. That guy's whole life is doing that. For a "historian" he sure does spend a lot of time shilling for democrats.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:What matters is how black people feel. They don't need a historian to explain a revisionist history of the past, they need to get away from the users and abusers. They have heard the promises, they have witnessed the results.

Democrats standing in the middle of poor black ghettos talking about this and that. They have heard all the lies.

don't lie to people. blexit is lying to people. if there are things perpetrated by liberals today, show that? if conservatives have a better plan, show how? but don't lie to people. don't play revisionist history to favor conservatives, just as you don't want it done to favor liberals.

Blexit is black people asserting their right to choose. To make decisions based on facts, not out of a blind following.

What are some of the Blexit lies you have uncovered?

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:What matters is how black people feel. They don't need a historian to explain a revisionist history of the past, they need to get away from the users and abusers. They have heard the promises, they have witnessed the results.

Democrats standing in the middle of poor black ghettos talking about this and that. They have heard all the lies.

"Revisionist history".

Explain.

Revisionist History is when you rewrite history to reflect an opinion or agenda. That guy's whole life is doing that. For a "historian" he sure does spend a lot of time shilling for democrats.

I understand what revisionist history is. Be specific as to how it's applied in this case.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:What matters is how black people feel. They don't need a historian to explain a revisionist history of the past, they need to get away from the users and abusers. They have heard the promises, they have witnessed the results.

Democrats standing in the middle of poor black ghettos talking about this and that. They have heard all the lies.

don't lie to people. blexit is lying to people. if there are things perpetrated by liberals today, show that? if conservatives have a better plan, show how? but don't lie to people. don't play revisionist history to favor conservatives, just as you don't want it done to favor liberals.

Blexit is black people asserting their right to choose. To make decisions based on facts, not out of a blind following.

What are some of the Blexit lies you have uncovered?

they falsely attributed quotes to public figures, and misrepresented events to justify their political position.

what facts are they making their decisions on?

That website embodies the "Republicans freed the slaves!" crowd who have no understanding of how political parties developed over, oh I don't know, an entire century after that. Not good.

They talk about Margaret Sanger. Let's look at one of her famous quotes:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,”

Since 1973, over 14 million black babies have been murdered in the womb. That rate has been over double that of white women.

Mission Accomplished?

Foo wrote:They talk about Margaret Sanger. Let's look at one of her famous quotes:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,”

Since 1973, over 14 million black babies have been murdered in the womb. That rate has been over double that of white women.

Mission Accomplished?

as far as i understand it, margaret sanger actually opposed abortion, if that is the end all of your case against her. (it shouldn't be. look deeper)

Foo wrote:They talk about Margaret Sanger. Let's look at one of her famous quotes:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,”

Since 1973, over 14 million black babies have been murdered in the womb. That rate has been over double that of white women.

Mission Accomplished?

That's a real quote, from a letter. But the meaning you've attributed to it is the opposite of what it actually meant in context.

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:They talk about Margaret Sanger. Let's look at one of her famous quotes:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,”

Since 1973, over 14 million black babies have been murdered in the womb. That rate has been over double that of white women.

Mission Accomplished?

That's a real quote, from a letter. But the meaning you've attributed to it is the opposite of what it actually meant in context.

so she was worried about spin of her actual intentions? i read it the way foo wanted it to be read, initially.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:They talk about Margaret Sanger. Let's look at one of her famous quotes:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members,”

Since 1973, over 14 million black babies have been murdered in the womb. That rate has been over double that of white women.

Mission Accomplished?

That's a real quote, from a letter. But the meaning you've attributed to it is the opposite of what it actually meant in context.

so she was worried about spin of her actual intentions? i read it the way foo wanted it to be read, initially.

Yes, exactly. You can actually take that first part at face value and not put a sinister spin on it, which oddly seems more obvious. It's a weird rhetorical trap.

It's all in how you read the "word to go out" part. Things like this make English an extremely difficult language to learn for people who aren't naturally exposed to it.

But even to native speakers, the subtle but seriously significant difference between word to GO out and word to GET out is not easy to distinguish.

When considering her intent, let's consider some of her other ideas. First, The Parliament of Population. Some highlights she proposed:

- keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred from entrance by the Immigration Laws of 1924

- the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.

- there would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

- Immigration: Open the gates of the U.S.A. to those countries whose inhabitants have the inherent talents and national characteristics desirable, eliminating entirely those countries whose subjects have already been difficult to assimilate.


She proposed this be controlled by the government. Retard slaves. She sounds like a real kind lady.

Foo wrote:When considering her intent, let's consider some of her other ideas. First, The Parliament of Population. Some highlights she proposed:

- keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphiletic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred from entrance by the Immigration Laws of 1924

- the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.

- there would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.

- Immigration: Open the gates of the U.S.A. to those countries whose inhabitants have the inherent talents and national characteristics desirable, eliminating entirely those countries whose subjects have already been difficult to assimilate.


She proposed this be controlled by the government. Retard slaves. She sounds like a real kind lady.

yeah, she was into eugenics of a sort. more through birth control, than by slaughtering / imprisoning, at least from what i've read.

are there no conservatives with wacky stupid points of view? probably even similar to what you've laid out, against sanger?