Erasing History – Memphis Mayor Wants Civil War Statue and Grave Removed

The Mayor of Memphis wants the statue and remains of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest removed from a Memphis park.

We’re willing to empathize with the mayor, just a little, and only if he’s planning on being consistent.

Will the mayor call to remove West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd’s name from any of the buildings named after him. Here’s an example, the list is too long to put in this post.



And why should Byrd’s name be removed? Well, if Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder of the KKK, isn’t good enough for Memphis I can’t fathom why Robert Byrd should be good enough for West Virginia.

And then there’s Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was a Progressive Democrat who was a viscious racist who re-segregated the federal work force and showed D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation, the story of the KKK, to a select audience at the White House. We’ve not heard calls for Wilson to be removed from history.

This is typical Democrat hypocrisy. “Civil rights” is supposed to be about “equality” but we find that apparently some racist bigots are more “equal” than others.


p align=”center”>

As We Celebrate Independence Day, Let Us Not Forget
Guess Who's Next in the "Civil Rights" Parade
  • jim_m

    I’m sure this budding little fascist is a democrat. Nothing like working for the masters that owned your great grand parents. What a tool.

  • “Will the mayor call to remove West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd’s name from any of the buildings named after him.”

    Why should the mayor of Memphis talk about something that is way outside his jurisdiction?

  • Brucehenry

    Why would the mayor of Memphis Tennessee call for any removals or renamings in West Virginia? Dumbassery par excellence.

    • jim_m

      So people across the nation calling for the removal of the Confederate flag from the SC statehouse were dumbasses? Good to know you think that. I suppose you are now rethinking your support of having it taken down now that you have just confessed to being a jackass.

      • Brucehenry

        There is no contradiction, dumbass. The mayor of Memphis was speaking in an interview about a monument in the city of which he’s mayor. He may support changing the name of the Robert Byrd Highway, too, if he’s even aware there is such a thing, but I doubt he has publicly called for it.

        On the other hand, now that citizens across the nation know, as they may not have before, that the Rebel flag flies proudly over the state capitol of a US state, just blocks from where a racist who was photographed waving it murdered nine black churchgoers, they have been calling for it to come down.

        To quote one of the favorite lines of Jim Fucking Underscore M, “There is a difference.” Damn you’re stupid.

        • jim_m

          So you are saying that if people know about a racist being honored somewhere or something the y consider racist being displayed somewhere, it is perfectly logical to expect them to protest it.

          But if that person is some bigot you idolize and worship, like Robert KKK Byrd, you think the whole idea is stupid. No one would ever want to repudiate his bigotry, his filibuster of the CRA will be celebrated by the dems for a century yet to come and those blacks will know their place and STFU about it.

          Yep. You’re a fascist and a bigot. no doubt.

          • Brucehenry

            This is how you tell, folks, that Jim is fixing to tell a big fat lie or say something incredibly stupid:

            He begins with the phrase, “So you are saying that…”

          • jim_m

            Nope. It’s to alert others, and you, to the inconsistencies and lies that you tell. You aren’t concerned with having views that are consistent with each other. You only care about each individual issue and you arbitrarily choose your stands. It doesn’t matter to you that they contradict each other.

            Such is the case with your views on race. You support treating blacks as ignorant children who aren’t capable of succeeding on a level playing field, and yet you accuse people of racism, implying that they think the same as you do.

            The same goes for your claims that blacks are capable pf making choices that are beneficial to them. You say that they cannot do so with regard to their education because they cannot be trusted to not be fooled by unscrupulous private schools, but you claim that they can never make a mistake when choosing who to vote for and you claim that it is racist to suggest that they are being duped.

            Your views are so internally conflicted because you a re a bigot.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL in the very reply to my comment you make up lies about what I have said. To be fair they might not even BE lies to you, but I assure you your versions of the things I have said are figments of your imagination.

            Never once have I come anywhere close to saying that cannot make beneficial choices with regard to education. My objection to vouchers is about the strangling of public school funding that the voucher programs I have seen entail. I don’t object to private education, but if you are an exemplar of it maybe I should reconsider.

            Nor have I ever said that blacks can never make a mistake in voting. What I have said is that most black people obviously find the arguments, policies, and proposals of the Democrats more compelling than they find those of the GOP.

            See when you go off and extrapolate from the things I actually HAVE said and pretend I said something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT, that’s called a “strawman argument.” It’s also known as a “lie” and a “saying of something incredibly stupid.”

            But thanks for proving me right.

          • jim_m

            Schools still get paid for students that they never educate. How is that taking money away from them? Oh, I guess it must be to morons like you who think that adding money for students they don’t teach must be taking money away. Do math much?

            On these pages we have argued that you believe that charter schools are run by hucksters working to dupe stupid black families. Everything you have claimed is that they are stupid people not capable of succeeding without your help. (anther example of your paternalistic thinking).

        • Sky__Captain

          Of course L’il Brucie is a confirmed jackass.
          He supports the party that interned US citizens during WWII.
          He supports the party that founded the KKK.
          He supports the party wrote Jim Crow laws to suppress blacks,
          He doesn’t realize that Southern Democrat Congresscritters voted against the Civil Rights Act.

          L’il Brucie’s debating abilities are limited to calling names and missing the point. He’s got that in common with George Takei.

          • Brucehenry

            I have stated many times my awareness that the Southern Democrats were racists, the founders of the Klan, and the authors of Jim Crow. All of that was 150 to 50 years ago.

            Today, the Democratic party routinely receives 90 plus percent of the black vote. That is because black people, black voters, know that the Democratic party’s policies and positions are more closely aligned with their interests, to a large extent, than those of the GOP. It ain’t rocket surgery.

            Oh I know some paternalistic racists will claim that black people vote Democrat to “get free stuff,” which is insulting to black people of course but they don’t care.

            And anyone who has been watching politics for the last 45 years knows that old-fashioned racists no longer have a home in the Democratic party, but they do in the GOP. Look at Trump. Look at Duke. Look at Tancredo.

            No, all Republicans aren’t racists, but if you are a racist in 2015, you probably vote Republican.

          • jim_m

            More closely aligned with their interests? Yes, because we know that blacks are huge supporters of abortion on demand, especially in the South. And we know that the dems have benefited blacks so much because they have been promising to lift them out of poverty for decades.

            Promising… Haven’t actually done anything that would accomplish that, but hey, it’s always about the stated intentions. LOL. Yep, republicans are racist because they believe that we shouldn’t be looking at people’s race for hiring or school enrollment, we should be looking at their ability.

            Bruce is a big believer that blacks are genetically incapable of achieving like a white person so we have to give them special compensation. Don’t tell us we are racist when you espouse some of the most revolting, bigoted beliefs known.

          • jim_m

            The notion that the GOP pushed for decades to pass the CRA and then turned on a dime to become the party of racism and black oppression is a lie. It’s a lie told by bigots like Bruce who want to keep blacks down and in poverty.

            Why does Bruce support a party that wants to prevent black kids from getting a decent education by forcing them to remain in failing schools? Because Bruce wants to keep blacks in ignorance and poverty.

          • Brucehenry

            The GOP never made a conscious decision to “become the party of racism and black oppression.” Indeed there was virtually no one willing, in the immediate aftermath of the Gandhian movement that resulted in the CRA and the VRA, to openly espouse the kind of blatant racism displayed by Bull Connor and George Wallace, to name but two of the racist Democrats of the time.

            Instead the Republicans became the party that was for “law and order” (meaning against demonstrations) and against “forced busing” and “welfare queens” and “free stuff for lazy folks who won’t work” (read black people), and that’s how they attracted and kept the votes of the white racist majority in the South who would have previously voted for Democrats.

            Meanwhile the Democrats, losing the South, were free of the encumbrance that was old-fashioned racism and moved to ever more liberal positions. All of this was happening in plain sight of anyone watching.

            Remember, even though it is true that LIBERAL Republicans like Rockefeller, Javits, and John Lindsay (and even Nixon!) were in favor of civil rights, the GOP nominee in 1964 stood against it and won the electoral votes of the Deep South in reward for that stand. Other conservative Republicans were opposed to it as well.

            For decades, the liberal wing of the Democratic party cravenly pandered to Southern racist dinosaurs in the cowardly quest to preserve the “Solid South” in presidential elections. That was shameful. In 1972, the Democrats basically expelled the racists from the party, or at least made the open espousal of racism taboo. The GOP, on the other hand, by its adoption of the Southern Strategy, wooed the votes of the white racists of the South. Thus they threw black people under the bus in dramatic fashion for the second time in 100 years. The first time was the Compromise of 1877 — the second was the Southern Strategy.



            They are still beholden to the Southern Strategy today.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, the GOP is against abusing government programs meant to help the poor. It is people like you, who claim that the only people who abuse those programs (which serve all races) are blacks. How freaking racist is that assumption?

            You are so racist that your base assumptions are racist and you can’t even see that.

          • Brucehenry

            Dude, as I say, I’ve lived 60 years in the South. I talk to people. I listen to people. I know what people mean when they say what they say. I’m-no-racist-but racists are still EVERYWHERE here.

            When you live a few years in the South come back and tell me your average GOP voter in the South is not at best a clueless near-bout-racist and at worst a mouthbreathing knuckledragger.

          • jim_m

            And what I am saying is that you are on the same spectrum but just too much of a racist yourself to see it. The difference is that you express your racism in a condescending attempt to help people who you think are genetically inferior.

          • Brucehenry

            No what you are saying is nonsensical boilerplate and imaginary gotcha-ism.

          • Vagabond661

            As someone who has lived in the South all my life I can say that the average GOP voter is NOT racist, but it is the favorite way that name calling liberals like to refer to us.

          • Brucehenry

            Well OK, saying “your average GOP voter” overestimates the number of actual racists. I should have said “a significant percentage” of GOP voters. QUITE significant.

          • Vagabond661

            Based on what? Opinion? Conjecture? Pre-conceived notions? Bias? Bigotry?

          • Brucehenry

            Life experience. Your mileage may vary, of course, but some of it comes from reading between the lines of what people are saying.

            The sweet little old lady who suddenly blurts out a line about knowing how “those people” are. The guy in the grocery store checkout line who assumes that because you are a middleaged white man you will think he’s clever when he makes a racist Obama joke. The boss who lets you slide for an absence but writes your black co-worker (if you have one) up for it. The numbnutses who tool around town flying Rebel flags on their pickups — ooops, sorry. Conversations with regular joe co-workers who out of the blue spout off about welfare queens or saggy pants or how white Southern Christian males are the most oppressed group in America today.

            If you don’t see what I see I suggest you are trying not to see it.

          • Vagabond661

            Oh, I can tell someone is judgmental just by looking at them….

            Well there are Welfare Queens and people with saggy pants. I am interested is hearing the racist Obama joke to see if it is indeed racist or spot on against his disaster of a Presidency. Since The O has been in office more people are out of work and are on welfare than any other time in our history.

            And thanks for recognizing that white males are the most maligned race in America. I know you through in the South (Southern Pride y’all) but I watch enough TV to see white males made fun of all over this great country. And God help us RWM! Rich White Males…

          • Brucehenry

            “Oh I can tell someone is judgmental just by looking at them”

            LOL great snark. Consider me scolded.

            Do I assume sometimes that a person holds racist opinions because of other things they say and how they dress or decorate their pickemup trucks? Sure, I guess I do. So yeah you have a point.

            However, as I said, 60 years of life experience has taught me something. Am I sometimes wrong? Likely so. OFTEN wrong? I doubt it.

          • jim_m

            I think you project quite a bit. I think that you overlook all the racist comments that have been made recently by dem leaders. I know that you believe that asking a black person to stand on his own two feet is racist because you don’t believe that blacks are capable of doing so. I know that you believe that people like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are race traitors.

          • Brucehenry

            I have never said anything like that, although I acknowledge that many people on the left have said those things, more often about Thomas than Rice.

            You are the paternalist here, with your condescending “stand on their own two feet” bullshit.

          • jim_m

            There is nothing paternalistic about saying that people can stand on their own two feet. look it up in a dictionary you illiterate jackass. It is you who are paternalistic, claiming that blacks are too stupid to function on their own in society.

          • Idahoser

            haha, your party is the only one with actual racists in it.

          • iwogisdead

            You might be right, Bruce. A typical white woman may have voted for the Obumble-Biden ticket. Clean, bright, articulate blacks may have as well. Maybe Indian 7-11 and Dunkin Donut owners and Somalis, too.

          • jim_m

            Just for you Bruce – Proof that the “southern strategy” is a left wing lie

            Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

            It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

            The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.

            To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.” Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. “If Southern politics is about class and not race,” he says, “then they can get it back.”

            2 researchers from the U of WI, where the faculty runs at lest 98% far left. As I have said, people are the racists you say they are. Your opinions are pure projection. If you want to see the face of racism all you need to do is look in the mirror. The reason you see racism everywhere you look is because you bring it with you.

            As for the left getting the south back – Not with their communist economic platform.

          • jim_m

            I would further note that the dems would have an advantage if there were more poor people. This is reflected in their claims that more people on food stamps amd more people on unemployment is a success cor them.

            They have a vested interest in making us poor.

          • Brucehenry

            Not proof that the Southern Strategy is a “lie,” but it may be evidence that the Southern Strategy didn’t play as decisive a role as we — I — have thought.

            The problem with claiming that the Southern Strategy is a “myth” is that one of it’s authors, Lee Atwater, boasted of it on video before his death. And another of its major proponents at the time, Kevin Phillips, is still alive and admitting, ruefully and shame-faced, that the strategy was indeed used.

            The extent of its effectiveness may be called into question by the UW study but not the fact of its existence.

          • jim_m

            Funny how despite having a strategy to appeal to racist white voters in the South the GOP has turned out more minority candidates in that region than anywhere else in the nation. Seems like a whole lot of projection going on from the left.
            1) that the GOP as a party, both nationally as well as on the state and local level in the South, deliberately attempted to attract white voters on the basis of racism. This relies upon the confession of 1 person on the national level that cannot attest to anything other than one campaign, and I believe he had a brain tumor.
            2) that Southern voters voted for the GOP on the basis of that racist appeal. This study puts that claim to rest rather persuasively.
            Funny how despite having a strategy to appeal to racist white voters in the South the GOP has turned out more minority candidates in that region than anywhere else in the nation. Seems like a whole lot of projection going on from the left.

          • Brucehenry

            Odd that you repeat the same paragraph at the end of your comment that you began with.

            You been drinking son?

          • jim_m

            NO. And that wasn’t my first paragraph either. Edited the original to correct. Not sure what happened.

  • yetanotherjohn

    Memphis is sister city to cities in Senegal and Gambia, both with a significant slave history, including modern day slavery in trafficking in children and women for the sex slaves. Anyone want to point me to anything the Mayor has said or done to highlight those issues or to break sister city ties? I suspect none exists.

  • mikegiles

    He isn’t the mayor of West Virginia, he’s the mayor of Memphis. He’s also black, and Beford Forrest was one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan. And what is wrong with conservatives. are they stupid enough to support these symbols of segregation simply because the Left is now attacking them. The Left ALWAYS attacks things they used to be in favor of.

    • jim_m

      Yes, Nathan Bedford Forest was an execrable man, who stood for and believed in horrible things. But we shouldn’t be erasing him from history. And it isn’t like people are using his tomb as a shrine to slavery and racism either.

      Nope, this is petty, revisionist history trying to erase the past in order to pretend that everything has always been happy and joyful. Let’s keep his tomb right where it is so we can remember what we were so we can be better in the future.

      Or maybe we should just erase the past so we can more easily repeat it. That really is the hopes and dreams of the left today.

      • Commander_Chico

        Taking down a statue is not erasing him from history, any more than Lenin was erased from history when they took down his statues in Poland and East Germany.

        • jim_m

          They didn’t move Lenin to another grave and raise his tomb outside the Kremlin.

          • Commander_Chico

            Lenin has a different position with Russians. They might raze his tomb someday.

            Graves should be in graveyards, not public parks anyways.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, he killed millions more than Forrest and the people he killed were all non-combatants. I suppose you would have cheered the slaughter of children that he condoned because it advanced an ideology you agree with.

        • Rdm42

          No, erasing him from history would be changing history books to remove history leftists don’t like, another thing the left is very fond of.

          “We have ALWAYS been at war with eastasia!”

          • Brucehenry

            Sure. Look up “Texas textbook controversy.”

          • mikegiles

            DO NOT fall into the trap of defending something simply because the Leftards are attacking it. What they are often attacking is THEIR prior history. And in defending it, they have judo flipped you in to taking responsibility for their past.

          • jim_m

            I prefer to point out that l do not do their dirty work for them by allowing them to expunge their sordid history.

  • jim_m

    It is also worth stating that it is entirely possible that Forrest was at least in part rehabilitated in his thinking as evidenced by his being invited to speak at the Independent Association of Pole-Bearers, an organization of black southerners advocating racial reconciliation:

    “Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God’s earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.) This day is a day that is proud to me, having occupied the position that I did for the past twelve years, and been misunderstood by your race. This is the first opportunity I have had during that time to say that I am your friend. I am here a representative of the southern people, one more slandered and maligned than any man in the nation.

    I will say to you and to the colored race that men who bore arms and followed the flag of the Confederacy are, with very few exceptions, your friends. I have an opportunity of saying what I have always felt – that I am your friend, for my interests are your interests, and your interests are my interests. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don’t believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some
    influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace. It has always been my motto to elevate every man- to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.

    I have not said anything about politics today. I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, that you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Use your best judgement in selecting men for office and vote as you think right.

    Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. I have been in the heat of battle when colored men, asked me to protect them. I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men, and told them they should be kept unharmed. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand.” (Prolonged applause.):

    That he gave the speech at all suggests that he was not a completely unrepentant racist. There is something to be said that there is more to this man than just his association with the Confederacy and the KKK. Perhaps we need to remember more the possibility that he could have changed as an example that all men can change for the better. (perhaps even unrepentant bigots like Bruce)

    But we erase Nathan Bedford Forrest from our history and we erase this too. We erase the possibility that people can change. But then the left has always been about condemning people, not about forgiving them, and certainly not about giving them second chances.

    • Brucehenry

      It may be that Forrest changed. However the naming of schools, public parks, etc and the erection of monuments to him (I don’t know about this one) was in many cases a deliberate finger in the eye to black people and those in favor of civil rights for blacks.

      For instance, a high school in Jacksonville FL was named for Gen Forrest — in 1959. Forrest had no connection with Northern Florida and fought in no campaigns there. The school was named for him BECAUSE he was a founder of the Klan and BECAUSE it pissed off the leaders of the black community. This is also why the Confederate Battle Flag — or as I like to call it, the Rag of Treason, Slavery, and Rebellion — was resurrected and became popular as a symbol of “Southern Pride” about that time.

      If you look it up, I’m sure you’ll find that many of the schools and monuments to Forrest were named for him around that time. Thus, whatever was in his heart in later life, he will always be a symbol of oppression and racial violence and hate. That’s too bad if he was truly repentant, but it’s a fact.

      • jim_m

        I’ll bet it was dems that named that school.

        • Brucehenry

          Oh I’m sure you are right about that.

          • jim_m

            A side effect of always being right.

    • Commander_Chico

      Well, since you accept that Forrest’s one speech was atonement for forming the KKK, we’ll have no more talk about Byrd, who renounced his participation several times.

      • jim_m

        Actually, it is fair to say that the dems supported them both long before either made any retraction of their views.

      • iwogisdead

        That’s sorta the point, isn’t it? If we’re willing to overlook the fact that Byrd once called black people “race mongrels,” all of this stuff about Forrest and the flag and everything else along those lines is hypocritical and silly.

  • Brucehenry

    In another comment in this thread I alluded to the fact that the liberal wing of the Democratic party pandered for years to the racist Democrats of the South in an attempt to preserve the Solid South as a tool to win presidential elections.

    Not only was this craven and cowardly and an abdication of responsibility but it wasn’t even effective! Between 1860 and 1932 — 72 YEARS — the Democrats only won four presidential elections. Between 1948 and 2012, when most Democrats (except for a time the Southerners) had moved away from race-baiting, it won 7. Still Kennedy was practicing this placating behavior in 1963.

    The GOP now owns the “Solid South.” But it doesn’t have a “liberal wing” any more. It must decide whether it wishes to be perceived as the party of the white Southern male or whether it will broaden its appeal to others. If it chooses unwisely, it may be excluded from the White House for generations.

    • jim_m

      The swing began coincidentally at the same time that the dems walked away from people of faith on the issues of religion in schools, on abortion and on marriage. Don’t go claiming that this was just about race. Once again we see you as the lying racialist you are.

      The dems had ALL the state legislatures and governorships in the south until that happened.

      • jim_m

        You make as if this is only about race. THe left has abandoned their constituencies on issues of religion, on marriage, on personal responsibility (Kennedy himself said that it wasn’t about what you could get from your country while obama ran on what he would give away), on American exceptionalism, on democracy, on individual liberty.

        If you think for a minute that the average Amercian wants a left wing totalitarian government, think again.

        If you think that the GOP has gained 30 state houses and their legislatures by pandering to racism you are a jackass and the biggest fucking race merchant that has ever posted here. So the GOP has pandered to racism and that is why they are in the position they are in today? Thanks for saying that or country is dominated by racists. FUCK YOU Bruce.

        • Brucehenry

          Eaasy big fella

          • jim_m

            As soon as you admit that your racialist claim was BS and that the GOP does not control the number of state governments that they do because Americans are all racists.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I guess you’ll just have to keep on typing Fuck You in all caps because I’m not taking back anything, even the things you imagine you read that I never wrote. LOL.

      • Brucehenry

        To some extent you are correct, and as I said, free of the need to pander to Southerners, both racists and Bible-beaters, the Democrats have moved, unevenly and fitfully, to ever more liberal positions. The Clintons mouthed liberalism but became wholly-owned subsidiaries of the big banks. Obama’s not much better. Had I been president someone would have been prosecuted for the Crash of ’08.

        But my point is NOT that the Democrats are sooo much better, just that Republicans must choose — are they to be perceived as the party of Southern white fundamentalist Christian males, or will they — can they — move to broaden their appeal?

        Whether pandering to old-fashioned racists or the “religious right” that hold abortion and same-sex marriage and the saying of teacher-led prayer in schools as their Big Issues, it is my opinion that this will backfire on Republicans in the long run. I don’t think they will win even one more presidential election as long as they are perceived as the party of the South.

        • jim_m

          It’s not about the ancient issues of prayer in school. It is about religion being disrespected in general and the dems drive to make Christian religious expression illegal by demanding the removal of all Christian symbols form public display.

          As for broadening their appeal, I see two Hispanic candidates for President and two Indian-American governors. What do the dems have? A pack of white people.

          • Brucehenry

            Smaller pack but I take your point. However the viewpoints expressed by the 4 Dem candidates range from Sanders’ out-and-out socialism to O’Malley’s FDR-style union-allied liberalism to Hillary’s triangulation to Webb’s last-gasp conservative-Democratism.

            All the GOP candidates are saying the same thing: “Obama Sucks.” And that’s it. I happen to think it won’t work for them.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, because you aren’t bothering to listen. You’ve got everything from Libertarian viewpoints to far right. You’ve got isolationist views to Reaganite. Also, if all you do is realy upon the MSM for your information what you currently think is all that you will hear because they have a vested interest in ensuring that the GOP message does not get out.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I see Paul abandoning his long-held “isolationist” views to pander to neocon hair-on-fire scaremongering. Paul is the only one who HAS said anything other than “repeal Obamacare, increase defense spending, traditional values yada yada” and he has moved closer to the others as he realizes he must pander to Tea Party orthodoxy to win a primary.

            Who else you got? Who has said anything that differentiates himself/herself from the others? Besides Trump, I mean.

          • jim_m

            There are at least people offering something other than “We will turn this nation into Greece”.

            Seriously, between Hillary, the archetypical EU autocrat desiring to dictate to America what it will get (and who is quite possibly 10x more corrupt that any EU bureaucrat, which is quite an achievement) and Bernie Sanders, who is like the far left Greek socialists who still claim that they don’t need austerity that the government is only spending 51% of GDP and there is plenty more of it that it can spend to give away to its cronies, you really don’t have much to recommend the dems.

            But then I am not surprised that you would stand against any candidate that actually believed in America, in a free market, in individual liberty. You want obama’s free phones and free healthcare and free whatever it is you can lay your hands on. You really think that other people’s money will never run out.

          • Brucehenry

            I have taken unemployment benefits for a few weeks in 1984, during the Reagan recession.

            Yeah I’m a real freeloader. You’re a hoot. I’ll call you on my Obamaphone and we’ll discuss how my free healthcare works.

          • jim_m

            You complain that the GOP is not offering anything new. That is demonstrably untrue. They are offering a foreign policy that isn’t one of betraying our allies and appeasing our enemies. They are offering something more like fiscal responsibility compared to a president that failed to offer a budget that his own party could find even a single vote for. They are offering the possibility of reforming the bureaucracy into something that is not a political weapon (yeah, THAT you will object to). They are offering a government that might even respond to a FOIA request without stonewalling as this, the most transparently corrupt administration in history, has offered.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            Reminiscent of the famous (or infamous) Craig T. Nelson line, “I’ve been on foodstamps and welfare, did anyone help me out? No.”

          • Commander_Chico

            I don’t trust Nimrata or Piyush – inauthentic phonies.

            After being raised as Sikh and Hindu, they “find Jesus” and change their names. Yeah, right. What about poor Ganesh?

            Come to think of it, I don’t trust converts in general, it’s either because of opportunism or psychological issues. One brand of omnipotent mythical beings is as good as another, although I grant there are differences of style and dietary rules.

          • jim_m

            Wow. If ever we needed an example of left wing racism we can always count on Chico to deliver. Nothing like questioning the authenticity of people’s race because they don’t subscribe to the bigoted views that you think they should have.

          • Commander_Chico

            How is it racist to question someone’s craven renunciation of their own family’s ways?

            I don’t like groveling white social justice warriors or Uncle Toms either.

          • jim_m

            Who the hell are you to tell anyone how they should live their life? Who the hell are you to say what makes a person Black, or Hispanic or Indian or any other race or ethnicity?

            You are a bigot. Face it. When you presume to say that the bigoted stereotype that you hold as what someone should be is the definition of their race and their failure to adhere to your bigoted ideas makes them a traitor to their race, you are a bigot.

            Now we wait for Bruce to come and excuse your idiotic racism. Because he will.

          • Commander_Chico

            I’m not telling anyone – if someone wants to deny their family traditions and denounce their fathers’ and mothers’ ways going back hundreds of generations, they are free to do it.

            Conversely, Chico is free to make a judgment that they are not strong people who hold to their traditions and is free not to vote for them.

          • jim_m

            Whatever. What you’ve just done is excuse your bigoted viewpoint. Anyone who doesn’t fit the disgusting stereotypes that you ignorantly try to pigeonhole them into is automatically categorized as “inauthentic” by you and you have no compunction about calling them a race traitor or Uncle Tom or any other vulgar racist epithet you choose and you feel completely justified in doing so.

            Bruce once claimed that people like you don’t exist on the left and here he is upvoting virtually every post you have made here for the last several years. It’s almost like he believes everything you say too, he’s just too much of a chicken shit to admit his racism in public.

          • Commander_Chico

            As Bruce has said, I speak for myself and not for him. I even upvote your posts sometimes, too, when you’re not in a Tourette’s attack.

            You’re not scoring any of your imaginary points off of him by what I say.

            You can’t deny that there are are racial sellouts. Just look at the faculty of any major university and you will find groveling white people whose hatred of their own kind goes far beyond the legitimate recounting of the historical crimes of groups of white people.

            To me, it’s about family – you’re going to change the name your parents gave you, repudiate their religious tutelage, just to mollify others?

          • jim_m

            That’s disgusting. Yes, white people have false guilt and say stupid things. It doesn’t make them a race traitor and it doesn’t make them less white. But you seem to think that if a black person doesn’t support the political agenda that you think they should that they are inauthentically black. You definitely just said that if a Indian person doesn’t act and speak and think the way you want them to that they are inauthentically Indian.

            Own it Chico. You are a bigot.

          • Commander_Chico

            Owning what I say is what Chico is about. Chico can make judgments and has his own tastes. Suum quique.

          • Rdm42

            You do know that there are quite a few Christians in India, and it’s a rather large community at that, right?

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah but Piyush and Nimrata are not from that community. They renounced the faith of their fathers and took up another one.

          • Rdm42

            So they are only “genuine” if they stay Hindu or Sikh? So you are declaring all of the black prison converts to Islam to be “renouncing the faith of their fathers” or the phony Hollywood Buddhists, or …

            Chico, you are breathtakingly transparent.

          • Commander_Chico

            Thank you. Transparency is something I endorse.

  • Idahoser

    he certainly is a democrat, all of government here is.

  • Constitutionalist56

    This is the same revisionism that infects Europe. The Commies figure if they rewrite history it will change it. Sorry sad and stupid, the triumvirate of DemonRat politics!