bullets13

lol.

i agree with the last part for sure. and i respect the fact that we can always have these conversations and move on past them to something else when it comes up without it following us into unrelated issues.

I really try to give some leeway on these types of matters. You flat out insulted people about 6 times in less than two pages of this thread, some involving profanity. It more than warranted a warning. How many hundreds of your posts could have been nitpicked over your time on this site to find insults, some thinly veiled and some not? You're asking for a warning for me saying you're intentionally dense. That isn't an insult. It's a statement saying I believe you're intentionally misunderstanding my point in an effort to not have to make a legitimate argument against it. I could've typed it out as such, but I assume that you're capable of understanding it's meaning. It's certainly less of an insult that calling me a naive fool, which again, I don't really consider that big of a deal. I'm not threatening anything, merely pointing out that if "intentionally dense" is worthy of a warning, the "naive fool" most certainly is.

again, for the 1,000th time, those card-carrying democrats were conservatives. period.

My thinking is that if the republicans started Antifa 150 years ago back when party platforms were reversed, and the dems today tried to use Antifa being started by the reps as a criticism, most of you guys would be in an uproar.

I said that you were being intentionally dense. I'd say that's a far cry from calling someone a dumbass. But if you're that thin-skinned i can certainly give myself a warning. Of course I'd probably have to ban you for calling me a naive fool if we're really going that soft, right?

you're hilarious, I'll give you that. you suck up every slanted news piece, no matter how dubious the source, as long as it goes along with your tinfoil hat theories and misinformation campaign. When others post similar things you jump in line for backslapping and blind agreeance. You calling me a naive fool is like Kevin Hart making fun of someone for being short, or Gabriel Iglesias calling someone fat. I can absolutely put a label on you, because you've made over 2K posts in the political forum showing exactly who you are. There are plenty of folks on here that I disagree with that show at least a modicum of common sense, and respect for other people, but I've come to expect the opposite from you. Why would I need a flux capacitor to go back in time, when about 95% percent of the modern day republican's platform aligns with the democratic platform of 1860. That's called common sense. I'm not surprised it's missed you.

This is some hardcore denial. Did you mean to ask what party were all of the southern governors and politicians who had to be forced to end segregation? Literally every state that was still requiring segregation when it was finally abolished was in the conservative south. And bringing up the KKK and the democrats is kinda the same as bragging about the republicans ending slavery. when the democrats started the KKK their politics were conservative, and align with the right today. You wanna take a guess as to the political affiliation of every KKK chapter that still exists? You may not, if we're honest.

They know. The funny thing is that they want credit for republicans abolishing slavery back when the parties were switched, and take complete offense at the thought that the party they would've actually been aligned with back then was the racist party that fought tooth and nail to keep slavery. Nope, they want to place that squarely on the democrats. It's kind of hilarious considering once the parties switched, the republicans were behind every racist policy enacted in this country for about 50 years. Don't get me wrong, some of the reverse racism crap the left is pulling these days is insane, and I strongly disagree with it. But the idea that republicans today who would've been hardcore democrats in the 1850s are virtue signaling about the greatness of the republican party due to their banishing slavery is completely misguided at best, and morally repugnant at worst. Blame the democrats for slavery, switch platforms, and then spend the next 6 decades trying to do everything you can to fight de-segregation and equality, but then have the nerve to brag about banning slavery. Realistically, considering that the republican party is now the party of wealth, big business, and minimal government intrusion, your average republican politician today would've been a slave-owning democrat if they'd been a wealthy politician in the 1850s.

About to start handing out more warnings in this thread. No personal attacks allowed. I'm in the middle of two fairly heated debates on this thread where I strongly disagree with someone who strongly disagrees with me. we've been able to find ways to be critical of each other's opinions (and even each other) without throwing insults or name calling. Keep it civil, regardless of how you feel about each other.

One of those semantics sort of situations where the republican party doesn't endorse it, but only republicans fly it.

It's well documented all over the internet by every major news outlet out there, as well as news outlets in the Minneapolis area. There are a lot of fake news stories on this site from a lot of dubious sources, but sadly this story is really happening. It's mind-blowing.

You keep going back to the same thing. If I went back to everything you've posted on here that I disagreed with or thought was wrong, I'd have to start a new forum. It's always pretty obvious when you have no rebuttal once you start going back to a completely unrelated issue I haven't even mentioned in over a year and a half as the reason that I'm wrong. That being said, you're being intentionally dense if you can't understand the clearly stated, and completely inarguable point that I'm making in this thread. There's nothing to debate on that point. And talk about me spinning things: Joe Biden would've been a democrat in the 1860's? That's hilarious. You ARE an 1860's democrat. All of your political beliefs line up with theirs. It's inarguable. Like I said in another response, for the most part, so am I. We can look back a century and a half later and say that, yes, slavery was a terrible thing. But that doesn't change the fact that the people with the same conservative beliefs and policies that Republicans have today were the ones who benefitted from slavery and fought to keep it from being abolished.

As I've now stated three times, the republicans of the north that you're celebrating believed in all things that democrats do today. the "racist democrats of the south" had beliefs that all aligned with what are now conservative republicans. If you took the parties of today and went back 150 years, you would be one of the "racist democrats of the south". Heck, I would be, too, for that matter, based on most of my political leanings. This is not an indication that I, or you, believe that slavery was a good thing. I don't believe that, and I don't think you do either. But that said, you do not belong to the group of people that abolished slavery. While in name only Republicans abolished slavery, it was the party and platform of the liberals that accomplished it. Conservatives had nothing to do with it, and in fact fought tooth and nail to keep it. To tout the abolishment of slavery as a major party victory to be thrown in the face of democrats is as delusional as those posters you mentioned earlier. Lauren Boebert 150 years ago would've been outraged that slavery was abolished, without a doubt.

Nonsense. No, it doesn't. There were no undertones to my post, only facts. You're missing the point, as clear as it was. Between the late 1800s and early 1930s the democrats and republicans swapped platforms on every major issue. When the Republican party abolished slavery in the 1860s (as today's conservatives are so fond of pointing out), they were extremely liberal, and stood for literally everything that the democratic party stands for today. Our republican party today stands for everything the democrats (who were pro-slavery) stood for when slavery was abolished. Whether or not every present-day conservative would have been pro-slavery or not is irrelevant, but the overwhelming majority of conservatives in the 1860s sure were. taking slavery completely out of the equation, the democrats of 1865 agreed with present-day conservatives on essentially everything. All that having been said, yes, most conservatives today would've been pro-slavery. We've had 160 years to dwell on how it was wrong, but back them it was just a means to a successful business, and the racism of the conservative south wasn't even considered a bad thing by most folks, just a part of life. I doubt many of today's conservatives would've been any better than the conservatives of 150 years ago, if raised in that situation with those view points, regardless of how well we think of ourselves today. If there were some way to teleport today's conservatives to the 1800s with today's understanding and world view, then sure, most of them would be anti-slavery. The whole point of my post was to illustrate how ironic it is that present-day conservatives go out of their way to claim credit for what the liberals of the 1860s did, who's beliefs, platform, and politics in no way aligned with the conservative's politics of today.

Looking at the records, none of them were really any good for about the last 20 years before they merged. TJ had one Co-district championship in its' last 19 years of existence. Lincoln won two district champions in it's last 28 years of existence. SFA may have "never been good", but won 4 outright championships and another co-championship in their last 20 years as a school, by far the most successful PA school during that time. All that having been said, the three schools combined for 0 state football championships from 1945-2001 when the schools merged. In it's 20 years of existence, PAM has won 5 co-championships and one outright district championship. That's slightly better than what any of the original three schools were doing, but not anything special. All in all, I'd argue that the merger didn't really slide the scale much one way or the other.

Always funny when I see conservatives talking about Republicans freeing slaves. the republicans of the 1800s and early 1900s were the liberal, big government party, and the democrats were ultra-conservative, Bible-driven, big-business and small government party. Make no mistake about it: every single one of you in here that voted for Trump would've been a democrat at the time that the Republicans ended slavery. I'm not saying that as an accusation that a single one of you are racist, but simply basing it on all other political views.

To be fair, with Cheney's recent political actions I think Biden could've endorsed Hageman, but Cheney's denunciation of Trump was a big part of it for sure.

Minneapolis teachers union agreement stipulates White teachers be laid off first, regardless of seniority | Fox News

Sorry, came in late because I knew what a dumpster fire this thread would be, butTrump has virtually no shot without florida.

Honestly couldn’t care less about this. Beto’s a clown, and the thought of him winning terrifies me, but the trump diehards on here trying to make an issue out of this is laughable. The hypocrisy of both sides knows no bounds. The same dems complaining about Trump’s lack of class cheered for this from Beto, and the same republicans who excused and even rallied behind Trump’s foul mouth and lack of filter are now feigning righteous indignation because Beto said a bad word. If it’s an issue for one, it’s an issue for another.

Bingo. With stricter chargers than the guy who accidentally started a fire.

Mom Sues Walmart After 6-Year-Old Died in The Parking Lot (msn.com) Somehow the guy who accidentally started the fire got prison time, but the mom who left her kids alone in the parking lot is trying to become a millionaire.

Yup, definitely cost prohibitive. That’s what’s cool about the YouTube channel I mentioned, because they’re funded by donations and the money they make from views. That said, they are also working on tips, not just randomly searching.

I think it’s great. I do think the immigration system and path to citizenship need to be revamped, but the fact that the government has refused to help Texas and expects us to handle it on our own is ridiculous, as is their response when Abbott passes on the problem, so to speak. How anyone can accuse Texas of being inhumane for trying to keep illegal immigrants from overwhelming our system, but then turn around and cry when a tiny fraction of those immigrants are sent to suck off their system is mind blowing to me.