Although it's a very interesting story, the article as written SUCKS!
Sentence structure, paragraph structure, character introduction, topic sentence - it's a complete mess.
By New Times
By Connor Radnovich
By Robrt L. Pela and Amy Silverman
By Ray Stern
By Keegan Hamilton
By Matthew Hendley
By Monica Alonzo
By Monica Alonzo
Tom Metzger's home in Warsaw, Indiana, was raided the same day the Mahons were taken into custody, and though Metzger's not been charged with any crime as a result, the link between him and the Mahons is tantalizing.
Robert Joos, an anti-Semitic religious nut was arrested and indicted in 2009 as part of Moreland's investigation. Joos — whose name is pronounced "Joes," not "Jews," as the spelling might ironically suggest — was one of the first people the Mahons allegedly called after the Logan bombing went down.
The Mahons are said to have used his sprawling 200-acre Missouri compound to do military-style training. When the ATF swooped down on it, they found it honeycombed with caves stockpiled with weapons, ammo, and explosives. This year he was convicted as a prohibited possessor and caught a 6 1/2-year sentence.
Court records also show that the Mahons were allegedly receiving financial support from a wealthy Michigan man, who's heir to old money. This individual has not been charged with anything, but the possibility that the Mahons may have had a sugar daddy is intriguing and probably will be explored further during the trial.
Finally, in an odd twist, it may have been the 2004 New Times cover story "Barbecue Nations" that served as a twisted motivation for the bombing. The feature, by former New Times scribes Susy Buchanan and David Holthouse, described a neo-Nazi "AryanFest" shindig just north of Fountain Hills, where both Tom Metzger and Dennis Mahon were present.
Though Moreland could not comment on this theory because the Mahon trial is pending, it's one he suggested to Dennis Mahon upon his arrest, according to a transcript of their recorded conversation. There, Moreland mentions the "Aryan Fest article, which is, I know, what kind of kicked this whole thing off."
That article portrayed Dennis Mahon as a drunken blowhard and described the event as one where "shaved-headed men hugged each other like they were at a gay pride picnic."
Logan apparently already was known to the Mahons, who were living in Arizona at the time. The brothers' indictment states that Daniel Mahon called Logan's office in 2003, with the anonymous message, "The White Aryan Resistance is growing in Scottsdale. There's a few white people who are standing up."
The New Times article infuriated the white-power movement. Could it be that its unflattering depictions of Mahon and the rest called them out, demanding a response that may have come in the form of the Logan bombing days later? Was this the Mahons' way of proving their machismo to the world and striking back against what white supremacists call the Zionist Occupation Government?
Perhaps only time, and the Mahons' trial — expected to begin sometime in 2011 — will tell.
Although it's a very interesting story, the article as written SUCKS!
Sentence structure, paragraph structure, character introduction, topic sentence - it's a complete mess.
Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recentlylaunched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionableand welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary,welcome to :===== www. ongoin.com ========
You might want to practice holding slippery objects, it would be a shame if you dropped the soap.
Hey ByteRider, is there any statement of fact that you have made here that hasn't been completely destroyed? Put aside your spelling, word choice and grammar problems. Is there anything you wrote that remains unchallenged?
I ask because I bet they won't be much longer and I'd like to get in on kicking your arse. ROTFLMAO.
Type your comment here....jerry sheridan is the "go to" guy for the past money dealings...he was in charge of the building of the new jail when it was under construction...he should be able to observe any spendings that do not look correct and make reference to what was to be spent and what is bogus...as long as he answers ALL questions truthfully' and i am sure he will, we can than come to a conclusion as the how much of a crook jow and hendershott were...one question that i still have and needs to be answered is henderhotts son was one of the computer guys for MCSO...did he do the needed "software" to set up file "zone 2"?...
We need your support and trust!!! Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps To our website Walk around A look at Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth You'll find our price is more suitable for you.
We need your support and trust!!! Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps To our website Walk around A look at Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth You'll find our price is more suitable for you.
We need your support and trust!!! Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps To our website Walk around A look at Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth You'll find our price is more suitable for you.
I think by the end up this we are going to see on the news one day the Sheriff being led out of his office by the feds in handcuffs. I do worry however how many deputies that just do their job and try to stay out of the politics will get screwed over in the long run in a witch hunt that will most likely follow. Its sad time for law enforcement indeed and we can just hope for the best.
Wilcox doesn't smell like a Rose, with Neapolitano, while Naepo. was Governour, the two, with other DemocRATs, were the mobsters of Arizona!!
W.A.R. is White Aryan Resistance, ByteRider Fucktard!. What about white supremacists is liberal, idiot?. Though using your super-tortured logic, who knows W.T.F. you're even getting at.
"W.A.R. is a white-supremacist association headed by far-right racist godfather Tom Metzger."Sorry, Lemons, but WAR is a far LEFT group, not a far right group. I don't know if you made this mistake intentionally or not but a little re-education may be in order.The further RIGHT you go, the MORE liberties you get-- until society explodes into anarchy.The further LEFT you go, the LESS liberties you get-- until society implodes into tyrrany.The KKK, WAR, and even the DEM [yes, Democratic Party] are left organizations that practice racism and elitism. We all know about KKK and WAR, but did you know:The Dems fought against freeing the slavesThe Dems fought against black men votingThe Dems fought against women votingThe Dems segregated the military and societyThe Dems (Southern Democratic Party) started the KKK, Lemons, did you know that?The Dems fought against Civil RightsRighties are commonly not associated with violence, the lefties, however, live in it daily. For example, did you know every Presidential assassination in this country was done by a Dem? Even Rosa Parks bus driver was a Dem...... but Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sr. were both Republicans.Okay, I hope that clears it up for you.
Forget about ByteRider, the more someone points out his lunacy the more he goes off the deep end. He's just another right-wing, anti-freedom Joe-backer.
If you can read this, then to ByteRider you are an elitist, and should be ignored.
He's not with the time.
ByteRider has been drinking deep at the well of misinformation Glenn Beck has been filing. Using selective data, removed from context and coupled with incompetent analysis, Team Beck seeks to rewrite history. Any who hold differing views, such as damn-near every university professor, noted historians and people with IQ greater than 80 are labeled as elitists, simply so the ignorant can advance to being arrogant - and thereby remain deluded and confused, but feeling much better for having done so.
What a moron. Reread my rant, Jack, I never said Racists were liberals. In fact, the word liberal isn't found in my writing at all.
You must feel pretty stupid about now. And do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
You're partially right, some Dems did as you accuse. So too did some Republicans. What's your point? Where's your condemnation of the Republicans?
WAR and the KKK are absolutely a right-wing organizations. How can you claim otherwise? Are you joking? Was that intended to be satire?
Who cares about the Southern Democratic Party? They aren't part of the current Democratic Party, they splintered when the Dems supported abolition and expanded federalism, amongst other issues.
Finally, MLK Jr. was not a Republican. He openly supported Democrats and Democratic initiatives, once referred to the Republican National convention as marriage of the KKK and the far right (or words to that effect). His son and his closest friends state he never voted to support any Republican, and they all deny MLK was a Republican. At best, you might say he was once registered as a Republican like most blacks in the South, but he would then be a RINO. Either way, it's a false claim designed to mislead the reader into thinking MLK supported the right-wing, anti civil-rights agenda of the Republican Party.
Not to jump in with so many others doing a fine job kicking your ass, but you're wrong regarding presidential assassins as well.
Charles J. Guiteau was a Republican. The reason he shot Garfield is because he, Guiteau, thought he was responsible for securing Garfield's election and was enraged when no job was offered to him. Guiteau, as a republican, wrote and twice delivered a speech in support of Garfield. These engagements were at Republican events, where democrats would not be welcome.
You likely fell into the trap of thinking that because Garfield was a Republican his assassin must be a democrat. Poor thinking, don't you now agree?
As for the rest of your craziness - damn . . .
For the sake of the literate, no MLK Jr was not a Republican. As the conservative Washington Post reported when desperate republicans started this insidious lie:
"King ... vowed to deliver 10 million votes to the Democrat, even though Kennedy was only a reluctant supporter of civil rights. That began four decades of black people voting for liberals ... (he) voted for Kennedy, and for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson four years later. In that election, King publicly denounced the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater. "
Don't believe Beck, believe the thousands of historians who disagree with his child-like efforts to revise history.
The KKK is far right, you sound like a loon when you argue otherwise. Seriously.
As for the Democrats opposing liberal initiatives, you again FAIL. The Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats) opposed civil rights, were tossed out of the Democratic Party and went, where else, to join the Republican party. They have maintained a home ever since.
Oh... and one more thing.. not to rub it in, but what the hell...
Tom Metzger, the self proclaimed leader of WAR is a REGISTERED DEMOCRAT.
You can read more about him at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
You wrote left-wing. Liberals are in the left-wing.
You must feel pretty stupid about now. (well, it's likely you always feel stupid ...)
Although the internet is replete with "All presidential assassinations have been done by democrats", here is a link... and lo and behold, it's on the Huffington post.. a liberal rag. Have a nice day. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Your first sentence stopped me cold in my tracks.
MLK being a republican, along with his father, is backed by his NEICE Dr. Alveda King, not some published rag. He wasn't just "Republican" leaning, HE WAS REGISTERED.
Do some research before you post, dumbass.
Btw, Truthout, you might want to do some research of what "Ring Wing" and "Left Wing" mean, where the sayings come from, etc.
The KKK is associated DIRECTLY with what is called "Identity Politics". Identity Politics is a LEFT WING behavior, ask your local, neighorhood friend Poly-Sci graduate, pick up a history book, read wikipedia.. here.. hold...
There, I just grabbed the Wiki page... yeah, it talks about Identity Politics, too. So, there you go. You are ignorant no more.
I never could stand watching Beck... he is childish, I agree. But, he has the best research staff around, probably even better than Obama.
So, until you can tell me ONE SINGLE, ITTY BITTY thing that he is wrong about, I'll continue to listen to him.
Only a fool would post a referance that, in context, destroys his credibility.
"he has alternated his political affiliations between the Democratic and Republican parties as each shifted its ideological perspectives. In 1980, Metzger won the Democratic Party nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives with over 40,000 votes in a San Diego-area district. He had changed his party registration from Republican to Democrat earlier in the year. The local Democratic Party chairman disavowed his candidacy, instead endorsing incumbent four-term Republican Clair Burgener."
Here's the chain. Folowing it demonstrates you are incapable of an honest response when called out for your idiocy,
You claim WAR is in the left wing.Reply challenges you to explain how anything about WAR fits with being Liberal, as only an idiot would ever claim as much.You whine that you never said Liberal and refuse to answer how WAR is liberal (which is an idiot's argument.)Reply states that left wing and liberal share an argumentative identity.
You reply with an insult and refuse, again, to explain how WAR is liberal, or left wing, which is an idiot's argument.
Stupid? I don't think you were following the chain. You need to go back, re-read, then perhaps check yourself into a rehab clinic.. you've overdoes on koolaid.
The differance is that I used it properly. I created a thesis, supported that thesis with argument and logic that lead to the inescapable conclusion that the thesis was sustained, and then used QED as an argumentative construct.
More specifically, I proved that you are incapable of an honest response when called out for your idiocy, Of course, there was little need for my proof, you having done such a good job all on your own.
Oh my, here we are arguing QED when you just used it at the end of an argument [see above]. Shall I dictate back to you your own rant? Nah. Not worth my time.
Dude, you're just a liar and an idiot.
You don't understand how to use Q.E.D. It is not a response, it is the conclusion to a proof, where the conclusion is the exact statement as the initial proposition. You are so far outclassed in this debate, truly I pity you.
You have no clue what you are writing about, but you continue to write anyway.
Thanks for the humor.
Hey, Tim, your public education is showing.
If you were hoping for a "quaere, invenire, vincere" then I think you failed miserable! (you like that? rhyme a sentence in two languages? THAT, my friend, is talent....lol)
Listen, I explained the used of qed in speech several times up here. I'm done. Any more explaining and I'm going to have to charge tuition to some of you numb nuts.Now, a bunch of people up here call me an "elitist". Thank you. "An Ego Is Born!"
My last word on this topic, Tim, is: veni, vidi, vici, beochi!
QED is used at the end of a proof to restate the original proposition, that proposition having been sustained by the proof.
One does not use it as a reply, particularly where the argument to which the reply is directed has shattered the original proposition.
The effort is appreciated, but it would be better if you could be bothered to use the acronym accurately.
Hmmm, when given proof that you are wrong you retreat to the twin safe havens of "but everyone else says it's true" and "it's on the Internet." Not very sound logic, but most delicious of all is that you actually give us a link that destroys your argument.
The Huffington post link is to an expose on why the "all assassins are Democrats" is a sham. It includes an embedded video that states "[a]n outraged Behar interjects that this makes no sense, but Coulter goes full steam ahead, and it's a train wreck."
You don't even have time to read your own "research" and yet you want us to trust your mindless regurgitations of right-wing, anti-freedom propaganda? You're the train wreck now.
One of the quickest ways you can research it is, hell, look up MLK on wikipedia, even they have it up there. But, any book on MLK will discuss it too.
MLK was arrested by Robert kennedy. MLK SR beg John Kennedy to release him. He did but ONLY IF MLK SR would campaign for a local democrat. He did. MLK JR was released. End of story.
Afraid to sustain your wacky claims? I offered that I am willing to learn. Teach me where Bobby Kennedy had MLK arrested. After all, that is how argument works. You make a claim, and when challenged, you offer proof to sustain your claim.
I confess, looking at MLK's biography doesn't reveal any federal arrests, only state ones, so I'm genuinely perplexed how the RFK as USAG could be responsible for any of MLK's arrests.
Surely you can offer some proof, lest we just consider this another one of your baseless lies.
While you are at it, can you find something that demonstrates Ray was a Democrat? He may well have been, but can you prove it? Remember, by the time Ray shot MLK most of the Dixiecrats had fled the Democratic Party, which opposed segregation, and joined the Republican Party, which was promising exhiled Dixiecrats a new home for their racist agenda.
To borrow from the vulgate, so as to assit you: Got proof?
JJ, I'm not going to use this venue to teach history. Either you know how to do research or you don't. Look it up yourself, it's well known.
And then, don't forget MLK was shot by a Democrat, too. Stick that one in your hat.
You guys are pathetic. You argue everything but the argument itself. In the debating world it means you've conceded to losing. You both know that, I'm sure... or do you?
Do tell ... what's to tell? ByteRider makes stuff up, refuses to defend himself intelligently, misuses basic argumentative constructs, resorts to insults and when faced with the withering fire of fact and logic retreats to "I'm rubber and you're glue."
You're more likely to get a well-reasoned, fact-based response from the Arizona Republic's editorial board -- and that's damn unlikely.
Yes, Kennedy voted with the majority of Republicans against Ike's 1957 Civil Rights Bill, largely due to its inadequacies and the problems it would create. Again, facts without context are of little value.
Kennedy, however, brought life to the civil rights movement and no revisionist like you can undo his good work.
RFK had MLK arrested. I confess I have no clue what you are talking about, but I'm open to learning more. Do tell ...
In 1957 President Kennedy voted AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS. Bobby Kennedy also had MLK arrested. MLK, Sr. begged [that's the "historical" word used] for his release.
Can't fool history, losers.
Sorry to jump into this odd discussion, but how is offering proof that MLK was on the side of the Democrats not on-point? ByteRider claimed MLK was a republican because his niece says so. Truthout says it isn't true because MLK's son says it isn't true. Truthout also offers proof that MLK supported democrat candidates, encouraged others to vote for democrats and that anti-civil rights democrats left the democratic party because of MLK.
Sounds like ByteRider's argument was pretty much destroyed. What have I missed?
Dude, you are bat-shit crazy. You start with the lie that Metzer typlifies democrats and when confronted with the inherent hypocrisy of that statement (you condem the D when Metzer is "registered" with them, but not the R with whom he has a longer affiliation) you retreat to a list of controversial (in the minds of some) left-wing groups, but fail to post a list of the far-right wings groups. And in that list you include groups and events generally recognized as benevolent and positive. Most telling: YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BLACK AND HISPANIC GROUPS. Not only are you a liar, a fool, but now we see you at your very ugliest: you are a racist. No wonder you love the Republican party so much.
No quitting, as far as I am concerned I've PROVED my point, you only TALK about yours.But, here's some reading material for you, Turdout, maybe with some research you'll realize what a racist, bigoted people the Dems really are. You'll begin to see a pattern in there if you have any intelligence at all.Happy reading!Duke Lacrosse TeamMost Rap musicMumiaTookieThe Raping of Tawana BrawleyBlack PanthersNation of IslamQuota systemsAffirmative ActionRobert ByrdAl SharptonJesse JacksonMECHALa RazaLULACObama Beer-SummitNational Association for the Advancement of Color PeopleI'm not beating this dead horse any longer, this'll be the end of my responses.
When the Republican lie-factory started spreading this lie, the Black Civil rights community, the ones who actually knew MLK (including his son) fought back with proof positive that MLK was a Democrat.
He promised 10 million votes to the Democrats, endorsed Kennedy, endorsed LBJ - he did none of this for the Republicans.
Like every good lie, yours takes a basis in fact. A minority of registered Democrats, known as Dixiecrats, joined with the Republican leadership to jointly fight against Civil Rights. But it doesn't stop there. This minority of Democrats were ostracized, denied national leadership and eventually they left the Democratic Party to join the welcome arms of the Republican party. You claim contempt for these racist bastards when they had a (D) next to their name 40 years ago, but love them now that they have had and continue to maintain an (R) affiliation.
Not only are you a liar who tries to mislead with selective facts, you also a fool who can not place facts in context as well as a hypocrite who is concerned only with party affiliation and not the character of the candidate.
Of course you want to quit this conversation: facts frighted the cowardly and the weak.
Again, you have gone into a koolaid koma. Dr. Alveda King has, on numerous, NUMEROUS, occasions, stated that her uncle and great uncle (MLK Jr & Sr respectively) were both republicans.
Who was MLK fight against for Civil Rights? The Reps? Are you that retarded?
Listen, you lost this argument, Turdout, give it up. You can't breath life back into your moronic statement. And by the way, we have the "video, the audio and the writings" to prove MLK & his followers were BEATEN by the Democratic establishment, that his own family claims he was a Republican, etc.
This will be the last I comment on this conversation, you've gone into la-la-land trying to keep to an assertion to a claim that is only true in your feeble brain, any further writing you could have would only continue to bolster your stupidity.
We have the video, the audio and the writings that show MLK supported democratic candidates, that he promised to deliver 10 million votes to the Democratic party and that he loathes the Dixiecrats who, because they hated MLK, switched to the Republican party - who welcomes them with welcome, racist arms. And you have what, a claim by a niece. I trump that claim by the claim of his son that MLK was not a Republican. Son beats niece, but that's an aside.
You've fallen into the right-wing trap of claiming that because most blacks initially registered as Republicans in honor of Lincoln, who freed them, that they remained Republicans during the civil rights movement, which as we all know, was a Democratic movement spearheaded by liberal Democrats, including the Kennedys. Please return, dumbass, to your mindless life.
Tim, Nazi's were socialists. Were they not? Yes or no? I'm assuming you're not a COMPLETE moron [I could be wrong] and you'll admit that, yes, indeed Byte Rider, Nazi's were socialists thru and thru.
Okay, are socialists left wing or right wing?
I'm assuming you are not going to say right wing but left wing, because, afterall, every written book on the subject places socialism with the left wing. (feel free to look up "left wing" and "socialism" in any pedia you have)
Okay, is NAZI not "short" for National Socialist? yes or no? Of course, the answer is "yes."
Does "nationalism" refer to racism? Ah! this is a tough one. I recommend you ask your local neighborhood Jew on that one if you have a problem. But, to sum it up quickly, yes, Nationalism refers to racism.
You've been schooled once again.
Btw, I'd highly recommend you use references when you state the Nazi's were placed in the right wing by some "historian". You used none. Me? Common sense, word definitions-- I defer to Websters.
Yup. The proof is in his writing. Open your eyes and lay off the laced koolaid. Self-loathing, as he is referring, is akin to "uncle tom". The guy is a huge ass racist.
Most literature written about MLK [and "lowly" places like wikipedia have it] cover the arrest of MLK JR. It also covers the fact that MLK SR BEGGED for JFK to release him. JFK agreed in exchange for MLK SR [and JR] to campaign on behalf of a local democrat [name escapes me]. So, they did.
This is very well documented ad nausem.
So truthout, you've been made a fool-- again, along with your merry band of morons. constantly handing you your ass is getting old.
MLK Jr's son writes that MLK was not a republican. His friends state he was not a republican. MLK publicly supported the Democrats. Yet, because his niece wrote that MLK registered as a republican, as did many southern blacks in honor of Lincoln, you genuinely think MLK was a republican?
Here's what other write on this Republican lie.
MLK was not a Republican, "according to his son, in his statement released through the King Center published in an AP article in July 2008 at http://www.ajc.com/metro/conte..., Martin Luther King III said, "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African-American votes in Florida and many other states." And this Wash Post article in 2006 says King actually voted for LBJ in 1964. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...In fact, in "The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.," which was published after King's death from his written material and records, King called the 1964 Republican national convention that nominated Goldwater a "frenzied wedding ... of the KKK and the radical right."
Even if we didn't have so much proof you are wrong, Son trumps Niece.
Continuing to your next falsehood. When did RFK have MLK locked-up? Per http://www.lib.lsu.edu/hum/mlk..., RFK intervened in a NC state action to have MLK released, perhaps you are confused? Perhaps you are just repeating something you heard on the radio?
Finally, your tortured effort to align the KKK with the left-wing fails because you wrongly assume that the Democratic party of the 1860's was in the left-wing. It was not. Just as you confused the use of Socialist in the National Socialist Party name to mean it espoused left-wing politics you have confused the fact that because today's Democratic party is in the Left that all previous iterations must be as well. Republicans in the 1860's were liberals (they wanted to change the status quo). Today they are not. Democrats in the 1860's were conservatives (wanting to maintain the status quo). Today the Democrats are liberals.
I know this is confusing for you, but I think I can help. Stop thinking about politics as being right-wing v. left-wing. Most elections actually turn on insider v. outsider campaigns. (Think: throw the bums out.) Because Americans seemingly always hate their government, the outside party always tries to set itself apart from the ruling party. Over the course of 150 years, this process can cause the swapping of positioning on the political spectrum. Sometimes the changes are slow, sometimes the changes are stark. For example, when Northern Democrats pushed civil rights upon the south, disenfranchised democrats who supported segregation and state rights left to join the Republican party.
This is higher-order political theory, but I'm hoping you're up for the challenge. Think before you respond.
Ask yourself (after research) what is the definition of left-wing. What does the left support? Now, what did the Democrats of 1860 support? Were Democrats in 1860 in the left-wing? NB: because proper nouns, like Democrat are just titles, whereas political spectrum assignement are positional, you start with the definition of Left-Wing, not vice versa.
So, now, BR, demonstrate for us you can engage in civil discussion.
You've issued naked declarations, but offered no support, so you fail. When you want to prove any of your claims, then give us cites (or just whine how it's not your job prove what you say is true.)
You're efforts at applying high school geometry to politics is abysmal, but easily tossed aside, especially given your writing reveals you know how inadequate your argument is.
You wrote "Funny how a bunch of "left wing" people could belong to a "right wing" group, huh? " You're right, so what if the weren't in the left-wing?
Let's assume you are correct that southern Democrats founded the KKK. Your underlying proposition is that these Democrats in the south were left-wing, therefore the KKK is left-wing. That's your logic.
You fail, however, to prove that key proposition, that the Southern Democrats who founded the KKK were left wing. As your research taught us, the left-wing is opposed to the core teaching of the KKK, therefore, the founders where not Left-wing.
Deny the proposition, deny the conclusion. Logic 101.
So here is what we are left with: the founders of the KKK espoused far-right political beliefs. The political beliefs of the far-right are diametrically opposed to those of the left-wing. The KKK is diametrically opposed to the left-wing.
You're too easy.
This is why every serious political scientists place the KKK in the right-wing of American politics. Heck, your beloved Wikipedia places the KKK in the right wing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
"The Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration. "
Your desire to run from the extremist within your side of the political spectrum is understandable. Welcome to the left, even if it is only relative to the far-right of the KKK, but please, don't make a fool of yourself by just making things up and then trying to apply bizarre logic to cover your deceit.
Theer is a reason every serious, neutral political scientist places the KKK in the right-wing, and no measure of dissembling by you will change that.
Meh, he's not worth the time. One lie after another. He's just trolling for attention. Let's move on.
Dude, you're just a liar and an idiot.
I thought perhaps you were a fool, yet another decent American caught up in the media-induced right-wing hysteria, for whom logic and fact would reveal the truth.
But, you haven't been fooled. You actually have tried to understand the world, you just lack the capacity for independent thought, and when cornered, you resort to lies.
Your mendacity is astonishing. Your lack of character appalling.Your ignorance frightening.
But you just go ahead and stay in your frightened little hovel, move the goal posts all you need to so as to protect the cognitive dissonance your world requires.
I've revealed you to be a fraud, so my work here is done. But do come back when you want to play again, but next time, bring some facts, not just naked libel.
Unable to explain why yet another of his lies was exposed, specifically that Nazi's are in the right-wing of American Politics, ByteRider ... did what?
Cowering like a trapped rat, gnashing his teeth, all the while getting battered about by his intellectual superiors.
Stay on point, dear boy, explain why you claimed that no historian placed Nazi's in the American Right-Wing when, in fact, all credible ones do so place them? You were given cites - afraid to confront your inadequacies?
Come on now, show some intellectual courage!
Got proof he is?
Race-baiting is perhaps the lowest form of argument, but that is genuinely all you've done in your posts.You really are pathetic.
Truthout, you're proof you can't fix stupid.
MLK was a Republican, his family states it, I've given you reference to that. MLK was also assassinated by a DEMOCRAT. (MLK helped Dems and Reps alike, btw)
Rosa Parks was harassed by a bus driver who was ALSO A DEMOCRAT.
Bobby Kennedy locked up MLK. Kennedy was... wait for it... wait for it... A DEMOCRAT. His father [MLK, Sr] beg the President to have him released in exchange for helping a local democrat's campaign. This is all well documented. I'm not surprised you don't know, you're most like a liberal democrat and the truth hurts.
The KKK was started by and operated by THE DEMOKKKRATS. No amount of whining from you will ever change that fact. DEMOCRATS are LEFT WING. Therefore, KKK is LEFT WING. Remember from college (assuming you went)... if P->R and R->Q therefore P->Q?
Every KKK member of congress has been a ... wait for it... DEMOCRAT!
Funny how a bunch of "left wing" people could belong to a "right wing" group, huh?
News flash, moron, you got your ass handed to you.
You have failed to intelligently defend even a single proposition you have put forward.
You claimed WAR is left-wing, but has been proven to be right-wing.You claimed the KKK is in the left, but the works you cite prove it is not.You claim Beck is never wrong, but then are shown he was wrong in a massive way about something just days before your doe-eyed claim.You claim all US presidential assassins were Democrats, and here you hit a double: not only were you proven wrong, but the link you offered as support was actually an argument against your proposition.You claim MLK Jr. was a Republican, but it was shown he supported the Democrats of his day, something he never did for the Republicans.You claimed Nationalism is the exclusive province of the left, yet fail to explain how the learned world considers Nationalism a primary tenant of the right.
Toss in an amusing mix of malapropisms and complete fails on how to use logic in argument, and we are left with the inescapable conclusion that you are a complete fail. What we don't know is whether you are a fool, a liar or a troll.
So, praytell, which is it.
ByteRider, you've resorted to name calling in virtually every post, yet now you want to condemn the practice?
Do you seriously fail to comprehend why we consider you a hypocrite?
Great point. How is it that Nazi's in Europe are right-wing, but ByteRider thinks the Nazi's in America are left-wing?
I mean, the left-wing definitions ByteRider has given clearly show that the Left hates all the things the Nazi's support.
Perhaps ByteRider can clarify this for us?
Dude, you claimed "Not a single political historian places the Nazi's in the AMERICAN RIGHT, moron."
Two prominent political historians were listed in response, both who place the Nazi's in the American Right. How do you account for this, given your previous claim?
No, I am stating the National Socialist movement (read: Nazi) is a right-wing movement. Just because they use the word Socialist, in honor of the German party they want to emmulate) does not mean they are a socialist movement.
This why you are a complete fail. You lacked on to one small little word and refuse to see the world in its greater context. Nazi's are right-wing. You're right-wing. That doesn't make you a Nazi, so let it go. I expect the Nazi's are further right than you. So enjoy being on the left for awhile and help those of us on the further left stomp out the Nazis.
Uhm, any chance you can respond to the arguments of fact that completely destroyed your previous position. It's clear you aren't even bothering to read the responses of others, likely because you don't want to face truth.
News flash - doesn't matter if you are black or white. You still have problems with people of color. So you're self loathing. Explains you more and more.
You're calling the socialist movement a right wing movement?
Boy.. you've slipped into sheer stupidity. Have fun with that argument.
Yes. Yes. Attack the messenger when your own message has no defense. That's okay, all liberal loons eventually collapse in name calling when they lose the debate.
This is interesting. ByteRider heard on Beck that Identity Politics (a movement dedicated to erradicating racism against historically oppressed minorities) is racism, and because some in the left-wing do not condemn identity politics, the left-wing must be racists.
In other words, if you ask blacks to join together to fight against anti-black racism, then you are a racist, or so advocates ByteRider.
As others have said. For the sake of the literate, here's a backgrounder of identity politics:
The seriel prevaricator known as ByteRider wrote: "Not a single political historian places the Nazi's in the AMERICAN RIGHT, moron."
Well, the American Nazi Party self-identifies as being right-wing, as opposed to what it calls the Jew left-wing.
Noted historian Frederick J. Simonelli, author of "The American Nazi Party, 1958-1967" places the American Nazi Party in the ring-wing.
The National Socialist Movement, which is modelled after the German Nazi party, self-identifies as being right-wing as part of its fight against the left-wing Obama.
Southern historian Dan Carter, an expert in Nazis and the The National States Rights Party (a Nazi-cover party) places the Nazis in the far right.
So, with one google search and two minutes of reading you are proven to be flat out wrong when you claim no historian places the American Nazi's in the American right-wing.
Here's your problem: you never went to college. You never actually read the scholarly works detailing the American Political Spectrum. You've never done research in databases dedicated to historical dissertations. Heck, I bet you've never even had a LEXIS-NEXIS account. The Internet is a free-fire zone where crazies, like you, can repeat what ever they want. Just because a political leader has success spreading a falsehood and seeing it repeated across the net does not make it real.
Seriously, dear boy, what on earth would prompt you to write that no historian places the American Nazi party within the right wing? Ponderous ...
Dude, you're a student of stupidity and you're doing quite well at it. True autodidacts know to read multiple resources, dig deep and actually think, not just repeat what is spoon-fed to you. (BTW: that you think heutagogy is a big word shows how poorly you're doing educating yourself.)
For example: You argue in support of my point: that name doesn't mean anything, (Obamacare) and then hope that somehow that defeats my point. You're a fool. The American revolution was a radical, progressive movement. It was most certainly the left-wing of its time. It was anti-tradition, anti-conservative. The American founders were radicals the likes of which this world had never seen. And, no doubt, they are sickened by your deceitful efforts to twist their sacrifices.
You lost this debate the moment you started lying. Your evasiveness, your efforts to spin and your abysmal logic only made it worse.
But most impressively crazy is your declaration that Nazi are in the right-wing when in Germany, but not in the right-wing when in America, when suddenly they become part of the left. Had your self-studies worked, you would know how mind-numbingly stupid that statement is. No matter what political spectra you elect the Nazi's are on the right. The mind ponders at the intellectual gymnastics you must have gone through to find a way to line up all the political ideologies you don't like and somehow weave them over the left.
The mature mind accepts that good and bad exists in all political theories and practices and rather then trying to vilify one over the other, it tries to assist all in accepting the best possible action.
I pity you.
Your concession to the truth is noted. Return to your hovel, whining about how everything bad in your life is the fault of some dark skinned minority.
Facts eventually defeat hysteria and propoganda.
I'm a student of heutagogy. Another big word for you to swallow.
"Second, the name of an organization has little to do with its true political affiliation. Just like a bill called "the patriot act" has nothing to do with being a patriot, so too a political party can call itself socialist when in fact it is not. "
Oh, like "OBAMACARE"? hahahahah you're killing me, Turdout!
Not a single political historian places the Nazi's in the AMERICAN RIGHT, moron. You really don't know the difference, or perhaps never learned that American RIGHT is different from GERMAN RIGHT... hahahah god, this is too easy. TOOOOOOOOOO easy. Don't you know everything is backwards in Germany? They even drive on the wrong side of the road! HAhahah but seriously... German RIGHT is not the same as American RIGHT. Google it, yahoo it, alta vista all day long. I need to start charging for these lessons. Here, I'll give you a few "google words" to google on: DAP. Or, "German Worker Party".
You realize this is loosing it's "challenge" don't you? Come to the debate a little bit more prepared, please. And don't be throwing quotes about "German Right Wing" crap at me, you better be educating yourself one what RIGHT is in Germany, circa 1930, as apposed to RIGHT in America, starting from.. oh.. 1776.
Wow, ByteRider you are just one hot mess of stupid.
Nationalism is a construct of both right and left wings. You like wikipedia, so here's a little something for you.
"Nationalism became a main trait of the right-wing ... right-wing nationalists endorsed ethnic nationalism and believed in defining a "true" national identity and defending it from elements deemed not part of the identity and corrupt. They also promoted Social Darwinism, applying the concept of "survival of the fittest" to nations and races. Right-wing nationalism was influenced by Romantic nationalism in which the state derives its political legitimacy as an organic consequence of the unity of those it governs. This includes, depending on the particular manner of practice, the language, race, culture, religion and customs of the "nation" in its primal sense of those who were "born" within its culture."
"Right-wing populism is a combination of ethno-nationalism with anti-elitist populist rhetoric and a radical critique of existing political institutions. "
"Linked with right-wing nationalism is cultural conservatism. Cultural conservatism supports the preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture."
In other words - the KKK lives in the right-wing, with it's commitment to cultural conservatism, right-wing conservatism and racism.
And, as stated by others, all from your favorite research source. Bite us, ByteRider.
Yet another complete fail.
First, you fail to respond to how the left-wing can be opposed to racism, nationalism and anti-semitism (according to your research) but are somehow the home of the KKK, who favor all the above. You were proven wrong by your own research, must sting, eh?
Second, the name of an organization has little to do with its true political affiliation. Just like a bill called "the patriot act" has nothing to do with being a patriot, so too a political party can call itself socialist when in fact it is not. You examine the policies of the party to determine where it lies in the political spectrum. Every credible historian places the NAZI's on the far right. Only Beck and mindless who follow them claim otherwise. Since you love Wikipedia so much, you'll enjoy this line from its entry on NAZISM: "in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics."
Support for that fact is found in 11.^ Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; Eatwell, Roger, Fascism, A History, Viking/Penguin, 1996, pp. xvii-xxiv, 21, 26–31, 114–140, 352. Griffin, Roger. 2000. "Revolution from the Right: Fascism," chapter in David Parker (ed.) Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West 1560-1991, Routledge, London.
Third, not only don't you understand the truth behind the "facts" you claim, you also don't understand the words you use. How, praytell, am I a protagonist? Here's a big word for you to look up: malipropism. You're picture is right next to the entry.
Racism is a part of IDENTITY politics, moron.
Nationalism is a LEFT wing construct. For example, "NATIONAL SOCIALISTS" is an expression of nationalism. That is pretty much what 1/2 the Democratic party has become over the years-- under the label of "Progressive Liberal". Oh, did I mention National Socialists go by another name--- NAZI?
"...concepts that by your own research prove they are not left-wing" buahahahahaha man talk about having your head up your own ass. You are just a protagonist, you're not even TRYING to have a conversation.
You're too easy. From the page you link too.
"[T]he left, view nationalism, racism (including anti-Semitism), and religion, as divide and conquer strategies used by the ruling classes to prevent the working class from uniting against them."
The right-wing KKK supports nationalism, racism and anti-semitism, concepts that by your own research prove they are not left-wing.
"But of course I am an idiot's idiot."
That statement from you sums it all up. Go patronize someone else with your ignorance, you idiot [I'm quoting you, of course, I'm not name calling per se].
Dear Child, if you are upset that people use satire to mock your having to resort to name calling, then quit calling people names. What, you expected that when you called me a "idiot's idiot" that I'd scratch my head like some backwater hick and say "yea, he got me good there."
But no, your lies are no just opinions. You made statements of fact, those statements were demonstratively wrong. You could have claimed mistake, but your perseverance in repeating the false claims demonstrated your intent.
You lied. You are a liar.
No, dear boy, you have not shown you used QED properly. You waived your hand and declared you had properly used it, but your Jedi mind trick failed, because QED is such a basic argumentative construct that even if thousands of web resources didn't reveal you a loser, basic memory of sixth grade informs us of your failure.
So remind, us, wing-nut, with all your arguments in tatters and all your claims laid out as naked lies, what larger point you think you sustained.
As for the rest of your pop psychology, it's absolutely hilarious that you think words such as histrionics need referencing. It's no more than a middle-school word. Just because it seems big to you don't mean it's big to everyone else. You remind me of Perry Smith from Capote's "In Cold Blood!"
You don't know how to respond because you lack the ability to construct fact-based argument. Don't like that Dixiecrats moved over to the Republican party, then take that fight to the Congressional Record.
FWIW, I don't recall anyone claiming all Dixiecrats became Republicans. The overwhelming majority - yes, but some stayed. For example, Byrd remained, but did penance for his bad acts and worked tirelessly to redeem himself, unlike the overwhelming majority of elected Dixiecrats who became Republicans, for whom you seemingly offer only hugs and kisses.
Your smokescreen aside, please explain why you got everything so wrong, but still expect us to trust you?
Start with your lies regarding Beck and the backflips you have done to move away from earlier claims.
Dance for us, ByteRider, Dance!
Coming from an idiot who thinks the Dixiecrats all went to the republican party, I don't know what to say in response to you, JJ...I don't think there is any kind of response that can be given to satisfy your fantasy. You lie like a rug, twist words, and name call. That pretty much sums up the JJ package. Well, with those qualifications, I'm surprised the Phoenix New Times hasn't offered you a writing job, maybe assisting Lemons or something...
Talk about a circular, childish argument. You're not going to start off with "I'm rubber, you're glue" are you?
The "lie" is your OPINION.
Listen, if you want attention, Tim, try the TSA, I hear their pat downs are spectacular [oh, another liberal loon invention.. strip search and groping children at the airport... chalk another one up to liberalism].
This QED tangent is merely confirmation that democrats can't argue my ORIGINAL point. My concession is to the argument, not the point. You are beating a dead horse. I have already shown I used the word correctly in previous posts but pseudo-intellectuals like yourself want to "feel" smart. Maybe I'm providing a service I should be charging for?
Instead of draping yourself over your keyboard, waiting for my every stroke, perhaps you should get a girlfriend instead-- but get some therapy for that histrionic issue you have, girls tend to be turned off by whiners. (hurry, get the DSM, look it up!) Just saying, s'all.
Two points: one mundane, one full of enlightenment.
First, your misuse of Q.E.D. demonstrates you are do are out-of-your-depth in genuine debate. No big deal.
Second, it took you days to admit to your error, which was pretty basic and amazingly accessible to discover, and you only did so after engaging in extremely bizarre efforts to spin your way out of being held in error. That suggests a pattern of both an inability to process information and determined refusal to admit when you are wrong.
Given that impeachment of your postings here on PNT, it calls into question everything you have claimed.
But of course I am an idiot's idiot. We know this to be true because you, an idiot, called me one.
Thank you for confirming that you, ByteRider, are an idiot.
Now that you've cleared that up, how about actually providing argument and fact to sustain your libelous whining? Demonstrate you have the ability to participate in intellectual discussion by "proving" I am an idiot. Name calling is easy. Leading a reader to that conclusion on their own demonstrates intelligence.
Until you can do this, you're just another person on Internet mindlessly repeating right-wing claims that, in fact, are little more than lies.
Lost what? On point after point you were demonstrated to be wrong. Can you restate even one thing you got right?
You misused QED, as even schoolboy can see, but you persist in declaring you used it correctly. Do you genuinely fail to understand why so many are laughing at you?
Your argument, disjointed as it might be, seems to be that others were successful picking apart the small things in your argument, but somehow you won the argument. How can that be? If your supporting claims are deficient, then you overarching premise must, a matter of logic, be deemed non sustained. You may well still be right, but you have utterly failed in your obligation of moving forward with a defensible argument.
This is argument: you poor word choice, the malapropism, the misuse of terms of art, your basic errors of fact combine with you dismal logic and basic refusal to meet arguments head-on leave you with no credibility.
So try again - what is it that you think you won? WAR is left-wing? The Nazi's are Left-Wing? All assassins are Democrats or Liberals?
You've been crushed on so many issues - what could you possible think you have won?
Tim, listen to yourself. Seriously. Go re-read your writings. You're an idiot. An idiot's idiot, in fact.
Then perhaps I failed. What's your point?
This is phoenix new times, not an academic outlet (by any stretch of the imagination).
Hahahahahaha Dude, you are proof positive you can't fix stupid. Really, give it up. Your sad argument is only surpassed by your sad existance... not to mention your own lack of reference. It's the "TimMartin" package, I'm guessing.
Btw, were you ever aware how the whole "qed" thing came about or did you just jump into the conversation to show how little you know? Well, you've succeeded. Congrats! Let me give you a little heads up-- the morons I was arguing with lost the argument so they stooped to picking at other pathetic things, like the use of this phrase as a response to one of their messages. Hey, when you lose the argument, you gottah keep fighting, right? Otherwise everyone KNOWS you lost and... well... gawd forbid that happens.
So like I told turdout: vini vidi vichi beochi! (that's a melioration--- better run to your dictionary and find out what THAT word means, then come back and claim I am misusing it so you look all smart and stuff in front of the uneducated liberal losers out there).
The most pathetic aspect of your misuse of this too common argumentative construct is that you seemingly know how to find the reference material that explains its usage, you just can't follow the rules provided.
QED is not some high-falutin' academic abbreviation, it's a grade-school taught conclusion to a proof where rather than restating the original thesis, one just writes QED. It is hilarious that you think its use demonstrates some membership in academia or intelligentsia. It's a something we all learned as children, and still you can't use it properly.
Between the original thesis or proposition, one must provide a logical proof that leads to the inescapable conclusion that the proposition is true. Only an absolute idiot would use it as a reply to a counter-argument. A six-grader would get a fail for doing that, so too must you.
Fail, ByteRider, Fail, Fail, Fail.
I'm not sure the periods are needed unless being used in an academic paper. It should always be either all upper- or all lower-case, however.
Reads like we both memorized the same definition of QED in grade school. Funny, isn't it, how some things stick with you.
ByteRider is outclassed. You're wasting your time. He's never going to actually consider anything you write because to do so would risk his realization that he got something wrong.
ByteRider - first you wrote " until you can tell me ONE SINGLE, ITTY BITTY thing that he is wrong about, I'll continue to listen to him. "
Now, when shown he was wrong about Obama spending $200MM/day, you write: " Does Beck make mistakes? Sure. No one expects him to be God."
Before you wrote Beck was citing the Washington Post, but that is not what he says on the video of his tirade. Why is that?
Further, you wrote that Beck has the best research staff around, but CNN detroyed his research in less than a day.
This is why it is hard to trust what you write - you just keep getting it wrong.
Yes, actually, we who live in the educated world do bother with capitalization and periods. We have strict style guides that inform us how to use abbreviations, that's why I immediately, instinctively jumped on your sophomoric usage.
You use Q.E.D. at the end of a proof, said proof following prescribed rules of logic. You don't use it as a means of saying "I'm tired and want to sound smart." Per Chomsky, you FAIL. You didn't use the word to communicate anything other than the fact that you don't know what you are doing.
You're running so far from what you said that I'm genuinely impressed you have the breath to type out more of your lies.
Come back sometime when you actually are interested in a truthful discussion. Those of us who know better will be waiting.
Qed stands for "quod erat demonstrandum".
I can't help it if you saw the word, ran to the dictionary to find out what it means, and then came to the wrong conclusion. Let me educate you: Use can be at the end of a mathematical or philosophical proof, or mathematical algorithm.
Btw, most educated people don't bother with the "periods" and capitalizations, we all understand one another well enough to know what is being said. Hey, here's an assignment for you-- go read Chomsky, he's a left wing nut like you are but at least he has value--- he's a good linguist. What was his famous saying? "Any word used and understood, whether it exists or not, is valid." (paraphrasing). Gee, I wonder if they have that kind of issue in the Esperanto world, but I'm going off on a tangent.
"But, but, but, you said Beck had better researchers than the White House and challenged anyone to show where he was ever one tiny-bit wrong."
Nope. Never said that. Again, you lack reference and truth. Instead, like many liberals, you dilute yourself in your own fantasy. Go and reread the original post.
"By your own admission, you don't believe in formal education. "
Nope. Never said that. Again, you lack reference truth. Inst... oh hell, just read what I said above.
"Beck does not have good researchers. Beck is not always right. But sure, keep up the insults, that works so well ... "
I think Beck's researchers are the best around. Does Beck make mistakes? Sure. No one expects him to be God [except, perhaps, you]. If you're such a snuff on Beck, why not open a blog and refute all his claims? Or any of his claims? OR ONE OF HIS CLAIMS?!?! He, like you and I, can only report based on the information that is available. If that information is wrong, and due diligence was performed, then it is called an "honest mistake". If the info is wrong and you know it, it's called a "lie".
No, before you write another name bashing message that contains meaningless information and supposition, I'm closing this debate out. It's getting old.
LOL: First, it's Q.E.D. Note the use of initial cap and periods. Second, your using it wrong. If you had any intelligence, any experience in formal debate or professional, peer-reviewed writing you would know this.
You're a joke!
But, but, but, you said Beck had better researchers than the White House and challenged anyone to show where he was ever one tiny-bit wrong.
As CNN demonstrated when kicking Beck's alcoholic ass all over the Internet, a few calls from a real researcher would have determined the truth.
By your own admission, you don't believe in formal education. One thing you learn in school is to verify your sources. Beck - and you - think that if you read it on the Internet then it's okay to just repeat it as fact. FAIL.
Beck does not have good researchers. Beck is not always right. But sure, keep up the insults, that works so well ...
Two seconds of research will show anyone that BECK didn't start this "lie", it was reported by INDIAN reporters. Dumbass.
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA I started the video thinking "Gosh, I'm going to be enlightened... by a moron of all people!" And then I saw Anderson Cooper. I didn't even bother watching the rest.Listen, when you get a REAL source of information, please feel free to pass it along. You know i'm CONSERVATIVE, so I insist you use moderate to conservative sources. I USE LIBERAL SOURCES FOR YOU, PAL. Show the same respect.Your statement: Beck lied about the President spending $200M/day on his trip.FACT 1: The whitehouse refuses to divulge the cost of the trip.SRC 1: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40033776/NOTE 1: Lookie, a leftie organization, just your style.FACT 2: Using 9 military ships, over 9,000 people, etc. Yeah, 200M is definitely NOT outside the realm of possibilities. SRC 2: Oh, just google it and stop being an idiot.FACT 3: Foxnews/Beck DID NOT start this, Beck merely PARROTED it, just like nearly every other organization out there. Who started it? "The Press Trust of India quoted an official in the state of Maharashtra pegging the cost at $200 million a day."SRC 3: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-05/politics/obama.asia.cost_1_hotel-rooms-trip-amy-brundage?_s=PM:POLITICSYou should be aware that CNN reported this BEFORE BECK. So, technically, CNN LIED. You're sending me references from a liar? Really? hahaha Debating with you is like debating with a 2 yo, seriously.
You're lying. Either because you don't know what he said and are lying by claiming you do, or, you know what Beck said and are lying to cover his tracks. For the literate: here's a link to Beck, in all his craziness, lying about the Obama trip. So much for the meme about Beck having great researchers, or intelligent listeners.
And Here is the link to Beck's lies being exposed:
Most important - we now are more clear than ever that ByteRider is a liar.
You're just as much a liar as Beck. Beck railed against the President for spending $200MM/ day (note the proper abbreviation for million), but has been silent now that he has been proven wrong.
There is no lie from Beck you won't believe, and no lie you won't tell to escape being confronted with truth.
BTW: trying to connect research with election results is a complete non-sequitur. It's too mind boggling dumb to address any more than that.
Beck didn't say $200M/day, he said "It was reported by the Washington Post that..."
See.. you only see what you want to see, huh Truthout? what a dumb ass. And how would YOU know what the research arm of the executive branch is? I'd say by recent voting events, it wasn't a very good organization, huh? Dumbass.
That you think Beck has better researches than the executive branch of the US government is crazy enough. That you think any person has never been "one single, itty bitty" bit wrong shows what a lapdog you are for the right. We all make errors, either by mistake or omission. Beck just happens to make more than others. He was wrong on his statements of fact concerning the theory of Darwinism, of Woodrow Wilson's progressive politics, of Obama's tax cuts, of, well, so many things.
Most recently Beck was wrong when he lied to you about Obama spending $200MM/day on his trip to Asia. Seriously, you think Beck has the best researchers in the world and that those researchers let Beck repeat as fact an unattributed figure from a tiny Indian paper. You're a joke, you just don't know it.
I think you've broken the record for the number of lies ever told in a single posting on Phoenix New Times. You're are definitely PNT writing material, ever thought of applying?
Were to begin with your craziness? Let's start with the claim that because a rich white man has sex with his poor black maid that he is not a racist: willingness to have intercourse (coerced or not) with a race is not willingness to accept that race as being equal. I'm flummoxed you don't' understand that. Fortunately, we can examine Strom's voting record to know just was a racist POS he was. Let me know if you want to lose that debate as well.
As for the Dixiecrats, you've likely fallen into the trap of accepting the Republican claim that Dixiecrat exclusively applies to the States' Rights Democratic Party, for whom your facts are generally correct. Unfortunate for you, that is where your brief foray into being correct ends.
The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the Democratic Party. Contemporary historians use Dixiecrat to refer to southern democrats who found their state-rights, jim crow, segregationist ways at odds with the Democratic Party majority. These Democrats left the to join the Republican party, where they have remained to this day.
So, you fail again. What were you writing about not being able to fix stupid?
Seriously, why are you whining about wanting to come here for debate and discussion but not for presenting facts and offering education? That is the heart and soul of debate and discussion: make a claim, back it up with demonstratively true information when challenged.
Sounds like you want everyone here to treat your words the way you treat Becks: without pause of consideration or independant thought. Good luck with that.
Tthe Dixiecrats went BACK to the Dem party in 1950 to 1951. It was a 2 year existing party that broke off from the dems in the first place [1947..48? can't remember].Strom Thurmond was about the only one that eventually switched to the Reps, but that was many years later. Strom probably wasn't a racist as much as an opportunist like most scum bag Dems... switching parties to gain votes... what we now call a RINO. Strom, by the way, was playing patty-cake with his BLACK maid, so I doubt he was ever racist in the first place. He also had a black child.
I came here to debate and discuss, not to give morons like you an education. You can't fix stupid.
Why don't you just give a straight answer?
I don't think anyone gave Byrd a pass, they just recognize that he did a lot of good and made up for the bad he committed several times over.
Unlike you who pretends that the Dixiecrats were evil when they where Democrats but became outstanding citizens when they flipped over to the Republicans, there is no hypocrisy in stating work can redeem a man. You seem to think the only way to redeem oneself if by changing party affiliation.
Hey, here's the liberal "pass" we're all told about. I'm sure Hitler would be your friend too, if only he would say he was sorry, huh?
I already answered your question, perhaps you should reread?
Reading comprehension isn't a big thing for you, is it? How about answering my post, the one I wrote, not the one you wish I would have written. Explain how Dem's are racist when Metzer self-registers with them, but the R's are not when he self-registers with them.
You, dear sir, are a hypocrit.
As for Byrd, yup, he was a bad man back in the day, as were all of his compatriots who left the civil rights loving Democratic Party to find a home in the anti-civil rights Republican Party. The key difference: Byrd repented, apologized and spent more than the lifetime of most making amends for his despicable actions.
For decades he became a tireless advocate of equality. And what of the other Dixiecrats? That's right - they stayed in the Republican party and kept fighting against civil rights. Where is your condemnation for the Republicans welcoming the Dixiecrats, whom you hated when they had a (D) affiliation.
You are rank with hypocrisy.
You studied in school? Sorry, I couldn't tell.I've mocked Dems for the racists, anti-American, hand-out "takers" that they are, and have so before ever hearing who Metzer was.You bring up 40 years ago to find a racist in the Republican party? Really? I can bring up TWO YEARS AGO to do the same thing about Dems, you moron. Two words for you: Senator Byrd. You want to go back 40 years ago? Fine, let's talk about President Hairy Ass Truman, he was a registered, sanctified, dues-paying KKK-man himself. (sorry, I laughed and coffee came out my nose hahahah... at least it was sumatra!)How about less "you're an idiot, liar, non-researcher, pretend friend to animals" verbage and more proof and reference? Trying to fill your msgs up with diatribe does not your point prove.
Huh? Unhappy with the arguments I write you need to go about making up things I didn't? Confront what I write, now what you wished I would write. I proved Beck is a tool and a fool, you just refuse to allow your shallow mind to grasp the truth.
You are either a liar or a fool when you write that you were merely reporting with the best information you had. If that single data point was the basis for using Metzer's one-time affiliation as a Democrat as support for your argument that Democrats welcome racists then you are a fool because only a fool would not have done more research, especially given how easy that information is to find. If you are now claiming you were "just saying" Metzer was a Dem for no special reason, then you are exposed as a liar to all who read your mendacity.
You mock Dems because Metzer once ran as one. Do you likewise mock the Republicans for all the time Metzer was registered within their party? This is just the natural extension of the hypocrisy revealed in your hate for all Democrats because 40 years ago a minority known as Dixiecrats opposed civil rights, but now you love them bastards who left to join, and have stayed ever since, as Republicans.
If you don't see the hypocrisy here, then we're back you being a fool.
BTW: your contempt for people who actually studied in school and worked hard to achieve a higher education tells us more about you than it does anyone else.
I merely reported what was available about Metzer, I know nothing more about him. He isn't worth my time to argue-- however, he sounds like an opportunist like the ol' guy who assassinated Garfield, huh?
"At the end of the day, Democrats love their country more than they love their party. Pity we can't say the same for you."
Really? Prove it. Like with Glenn Beck, you can't drum up any proof of anything. You think turning this country into a nanny state is American? Did you think running the deficit to levels to levels never seen before is American? You think calling Republicans "the enemy" is American? You think passing massive legislation without any buy-in from the opposite party is American? Turdout, you're an ass. A complete, total, certified ass.
You should be sorry for a lot more than giving me credit. Try being sorry for the socialistic, democratically control educational institute you attended.
"you need to learn how you get a party affliated backing"
What does "party affiliated backing" mean? The Dem leadership supported the Republican candidate.
Metzer was a Republican who switched to Dem, and was rejected by the Dem leadership and ultimately the voters, D and R united.
I'm sorry, I gave you more credit than I should have. As other readers certainly understand, the snippet demonstrates that your fundamental thesis, that Metzer was a Democrat because Democrats support racism, was wrong as in truth Metzer is an opportunist.
He switched from the Republican Party (where racists are welcome) to the Democratic party to take advantage of no serious Democrats coming forward to run against a popular four-term Republican incumbent. When he out-financed the competition and won the primary, the horrified Democrat leadership, who oppose racism, threw their endorsement to the Republican and cheered in the victory of the loathed right-wing incumbent over the even more loathed right-wing racist.
Rather than proving that Democrats support racists and the KKK you have proven how far the Democrats will go to ensure that racists are never elected, even if it means supporting the opposition. At the end of the day, Democrats love their country more than they love their party. Pity we can't say the same for you.
BTW: what you read above is called putting facts in context. Consider doing it sometime.
Hahah... funny, Turdout, but you need to learn how you get a party affliated backing. He is a democrat, he was a democrat when he started WAR, he won a democratic nomination, etc.
Shesh... if that doesn't say it, WTF would in your eyes? Does he need to dry hump Obama to satisfy you? Well if so, you'll have to get off of Obama's leg and let him have a turn.