info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Remember When Democrats And Republicans 'Switched Sides' On Civil Rights
6 views
Skip to first unread message
American Thinker
Nov 24, 2018, 1:50:13โฏPM11/24/18
to
Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
civil rights movement.. Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King would
not freaking be conservative Republicans today. For that matter, neither
would Susan B. Anthony. Itโs absolutely absurd. It doesnโt even sort of
make sense because at all times throughout all history, all civil rights
issues are progressive issues regardless of party alignment.
The fact of the matter is, both parties have undergone major changes
throughout the past 150 years or so. Hell, within the last 40 years. In
certain aspects, Richard Nixon would be way the hell to the left of todayโs
Democratic Party.
You canโt really look at the history of American politics through the lens
of the Republican Party meaning one immutable thing and the Democratic
Party meaning another. Because also, like, 100 years ago, both parties had
conservative and progressive wings, which is no longer the case. It would
also be difficult to place most people from 100 years ago into either of
todayโs parties. It makes more sense to look at it through the lens of
North and South, conservative and progressive.
Take, for instance, William Jennings Bryan, The Great Commoner. Dude was a
Democrat and super far to the left on most issues in his day. He was
opposed to the Gold Standard, in favor of civil rights and labor rights,
anti-war โฆ but then was also in favor of prohibition and notoriously
opposed to Darwin and teaching evolution. Where would he fit today? Pretty
much nowhere. Then, you know, you had the crazy-ass southern Democrats who
were super conservative on social issues and more progressive economically,
because they benefited from farm subsidies. It was the same with the
Republicans, many of whom were more socially liberal and economically
conservative.
Hereโs the thing: the Republicans were the โParty of Lincoln,โ โ who, by
the way, wasnโt exactly like, not racistโ in 1860. But basically from 1860
on, they were pretty concerned with backing away from the whole โrights for
black peopleโ thing because they didnโt want to โalienateโ racist white
people. Basically, during the last half of the 1800s, everyone was racist
and no one was the party of civil rights. However, by and large, black
people tended to vote Republican, because Lincoln.
The first major thing that happened after the Civil War as far as the
division of parties goes, is TEDDY ROOSEVELT. TR was President William
McKinleyโs veep, and a progressive Republican. Like, super progressive. Can
you even imagine a Republican today establishing National Parks and
breaking up trusts? Hell no.
After McKinley was assassinated, establishment Republicans were super-
pissed because they hated his guts. Still, he was pretty popular with the
people, so he won a second term. After leaving office, he promoted his
buddy, the more conservative Taft as the Republican Presidential nominee,
and he won.
Now, Roosevelt had vowed not to run again, but when he saw what Taft was
doing with the place (with trusts and things, not just with the bathtub),
he was like โAW HELL NOโ and decided heโd run for another term in 1912.
However, he couldnโt secure the nomination from the Republican Party, so he
started his own party, โThe Progressive Partyโ a.k.a. โThe Bull Moose
Partyโ and ran against Taft, Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Socialist Eugene
V. Debs.
Now, Woodrow Wilson kicked everyoneโs ass, and what ended up happening is
that the progressive Republicans start inching on over to the Democratic
Party.
THEN COMES HERBERT HOOVER. Ok, so we all know about Nixonโs Southern
Strategy, right? Well, he was not the first to pull that trick. Herbie was
really the OG Southern Strategist. See, he happened to be running against a
northern Democratic Catholic in 1928. You know who old timey Southerners
hated almost as much as they hated black people? Catholics. So, Hoover woos
himself some KKK members and they get everyone in the South freaked out
about the possibility of a Catholic in the oval office. He then ends up
being the first Republican to win Texas and also ended up winning some
other ex-Confederate states.
Although people usually site Goldwaterโs rejection of the Civil Rights Act
as the point where Republicans began losing black voters, this is really
where everything started. Because after this, most of the civil rights
leaders of the day ended up switching over.
ESPECIALLY ONCE FDR TOOK OFFICE. Because FDR was pretty liberal on
everything, and by this time most black people were voting Democrat because
of Hooverโs shit. He ends up pushing through Executive Order 8802, which
created the Fair Employment Practices Committee, which was like, the most
important thing as far as Civil Rights went in between Reconstruction and
the Civil Rights Act. Pretty much the only thing. Plus you also had the
fact that Eleanor was all kinds of bad ass as far as that shit went. Not to
say that dude wasnโt gross about Japanese-Americans and internment, because
he was.
OK SO GOLDWATER. Back to where we started! So, at this point, Southern
Democrats were super pissed at their Northern counterpoints, and were way
the hell not cool with dudes like Kennedy and Johnson. Goldwater, being way
more conservative than Rockefeller (who was a progressive, pro-civil rights
Republican), started catching their eye. They became especially enamored
with him when he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Strom Thurmond even
switched parties. However, black Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans
were pretty grossed out by this and went Democratic. And have not turned
back since.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party took on all the pro-civil rights folks, and
most of the progressive wing of the Republican Party.
NIXON CONTINUES THE SEDUCTION. With the infamous Southern Strategy.
Basically, he used the fear of hippies and commies and radical black people
to woo the southern states again. He uses dog-whistle terms like โbussingโ
and โstates rightsโ to surreptitiously convince racist southern whites that
he is down for the cause. It wasnโt too hard, because they were already
grumpy about Johnson being too progressive.
REAGAN SEALS THE DEAL. Now, hereโs the thing. At the point when Reagan was
elected, the Deep South was still kind of a Democratic stronghold. Because
of tradition, and also because left-leaning economic policies benefited
Southern farmers and workers and poor whites. So, one thing Reagan did to
woo them was to embrace the Religious Right, which worked for them because
they loved Jesus. Then, he busts out all that crap about supposed โWelfare
Queensโโ another dog-whistle termโ who turned out to be entirely made up.
So then they love Reagan and hate black people and poor people, even though
like, a lot of them also happen to be poor people.
And it just continues to this day. Republicans who had previously backed
some progressive causes here and there (i.e. George Bush Sr. had been pro-
choice, Bob Dole was pro-food stamps) switched it all around and went
entirely conservative on all of the things. Which is why, as desperately as
they may want to ally themselves with progressive causes of the past, they
really canโt.
The way things stand now? Well, of course not all Republicans are racist.
However, if you do happen to be a super crazy racist, youโre probably not
voting Democrat these days.
civil rights movement.. Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King would
not freaking be conservative Republicans today. For that matter, neither
would Susan B. Anthony. Itโs absolutely absurd. It doesnโt even sort of
make sense because at all times throughout all history, all civil rights
issues are progressive issues regardless of party alignment.
The fact of the matter is, both parties have undergone major changes
throughout the past 150 years or so. Hell, within the last 40 years. In
certain aspects, Richard Nixon would be way the hell to the left of todayโs
Democratic Party.
You canโt really look at the history of American politics through the lens
of the Republican Party meaning one immutable thing and the Democratic
Party meaning another. Because also, like, 100 years ago, both parties had
conservative and progressive wings, which is no longer the case. It would
also be difficult to place most people from 100 years ago into either of
todayโs parties. It makes more sense to look at it through the lens of
North and South, conservative and progressive.
Take, for instance, William Jennings Bryan, The Great Commoner. Dude was a
Democrat and super far to the left on most issues in his day. He was
opposed to the Gold Standard, in favor of civil rights and labor rights,
anti-war โฆ but then was also in favor of prohibition and notoriously
opposed to Darwin and teaching evolution. Where would he fit today? Pretty
much nowhere. Then, you know, you had the crazy-ass southern Democrats who
were super conservative on social issues and more progressive economically,
because they benefited from farm subsidies. It was the same with the
Republicans, many of whom were more socially liberal and economically
conservative.
Hereโs the thing: the Republicans were the โParty of Lincoln,โ โ who, by
the way, wasnโt exactly like, not racistโ in 1860. But basically from 1860
on, they were pretty concerned with backing away from the whole โrights for
black peopleโ thing because they didnโt want to โalienateโ racist white
people. Basically, during the last half of the 1800s, everyone was racist
and no one was the party of civil rights. However, by and large, black
people tended to vote Republican, because Lincoln.
The first major thing that happened after the Civil War as far as the
division of parties goes, is TEDDY ROOSEVELT. TR was President William
McKinleyโs veep, and a progressive Republican. Like, super progressive. Can
you even imagine a Republican today establishing National Parks and
breaking up trusts? Hell no.
After McKinley was assassinated, establishment Republicans were super-
pissed because they hated his guts. Still, he was pretty popular with the
people, so he won a second term. After leaving office, he promoted his
buddy, the more conservative Taft as the Republican Presidential nominee,
and he won.
Now, Roosevelt had vowed not to run again, but when he saw what Taft was
doing with the place (with trusts and things, not just with the bathtub),
he was like โAW HELL NOโ and decided heโd run for another term in 1912.
However, he couldnโt secure the nomination from the Republican Party, so he
started his own party, โThe Progressive Partyโ a.k.a. โThe Bull Moose
Partyโ and ran against Taft, Democrat Woodrow Wilson and Socialist Eugene
V. Debs.
Now, Woodrow Wilson kicked everyoneโs ass, and what ended up happening is
that the progressive Republicans start inching on over to the Democratic
Party.
THEN COMES HERBERT HOOVER. Ok, so we all know about Nixonโs Southern
Strategy, right? Well, he was not the first to pull that trick. Herbie was
really the OG Southern Strategist. See, he happened to be running against a
northern Democratic Catholic in 1928. You know who old timey Southerners
hated almost as much as they hated black people? Catholics. So, Hoover woos
himself some KKK members and they get everyone in the South freaked out
about the possibility of a Catholic in the oval office. He then ends up
being the first Republican to win Texas and also ended up winning some
other ex-Confederate states.
Although people usually site Goldwaterโs rejection of the Civil Rights Act
as the point where Republicans began losing black voters, this is really
where everything started. Because after this, most of the civil rights
leaders of the day ended up switching over.
ESPECIALLY ONCE FDR TOOK OFFICE. Because FDR was pretty liberal on
everything, and by this time most black people were voting Democrat because
of Hooverโs shit. He ends up pushing through Executive Order 8802, which
created the Fair Employment Practices Committee, which was like, the most
important thing as far as Civil Rights went in between Reconstruction and
the Civil Rights Act. Pretty much the only thing. Plus you also had the
fact that Eleanor was all kinds of bad ass as far as that shit went. Not to
say that dude wasnโt gross about Japanese-Americans and internment, because
he was.
OK SO GOLDWATER. Back to where we started! So, at this point, Southern
Democrats were super pissed at their Northern counterpoints, and were way
the hell not cool with dudes like Kennedy and Johnson. Goldwater, being way
more conservative than Rockefeller (who was a progressive, pro-civil rights
Republican), started catching their eye. They became especially enamored
with him when he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Strom Thurmond even
switched parties. However, black Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans
were pretty grossed out by this and went Democratic. And have not turned
back since.
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party took on all the pro-civil rights folks, and
most of the progressive wing of the Republican Party.
NIXON CONTINUES THE SEDUCTION. With the infamous Southern Strategy.
Basically, he used the fear of hippies and commies and radical black people
to woo the southern states again. He uses dog-whistle terms like โbussingโ
and โstates rightsโ to surreptitiously convince racist southern whites that
he is down for the cause. It wasnโt too hard, because they were already
grumpy about Johnson being too progressive.
REAGAN SEALS THE DEAL. Now, hereโs the thing. At the point when Reagan was
elected, the Deep South was still kind of a Democratic stronghold. Because
of tradition, and also because left-leaning economic policies benefited
Southern farmers and workers and poor whites. So, one thing Reagan did to
woo them was to embrace the Religious Right, which worked for them because
they loved Jesus. Then, he busts out all that crap about supposed โWelfare
Queensโโ another dog-whistle termโ who turned out to be entirely made up.
So then they love Reagan and hate black people and poor people, even though
like, a lot of them also happen to be poor people.
And it just continues to this day. Republicans who had previously backed
some progressive causes here and there (i.e. George Bush Sr. had been pro-
choice, Bob Dole was pro-food stamps) switched it all around and went
entirely conservative on all of the things. Which is why, as desperately as
they may want to ally themselves with progressive causes of the past, they
really canโt.
The way things stand now? Well, of course not all Republicans are racist.
However, if you do happen to be a super crazy racist, youโre probably not
voting Democrat these days.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 2:33:13โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:50:12 +0000 (UTC), American Thinker
<athi...@gopfags.net> wrote:
>Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>civil rights movement.
That's right, everyone knows about the Great Thaumaturgic
<athi...@gopfags.net> wrote:
>Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>civil rights movement.
Transformationโข, where Democrats decided it would be much easier to
claim they were Republicans than to admit they're a bunch of racist
assholes.
Eunice Wunderlich
Nov 24, 2018, 2:42:47โฏPM11/24/18
to
[followups vandalism by rancid cunt repaired]
On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
> civil rights movement..
A ruse that fools no one. Today's Republicans are yesteryear's Dixiecrats.
On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
> civil rights movement..
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 2:50:02โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>[followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
bigoted as ever.
>[followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>
>On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>> civil rights movement..
>
>A ruse that fools no one. Today's Republicans are yesteryear's Dixiecrats.
Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>> civil rights movement..
>
>A ruse that fools no one. Today's Republicans are yesteryear's Dixiecrats.
bigoted as ever.
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 4:20:40โฏPM11/24/18
to
surely they have the right to take down THEIR confederate monuments
which were erected as symbols of slavery and oppression, right?
Klaus back pedals in 3... 2... 1...
Or maybe he will just snip and Google seed. It is what he usually does
when faced with his own stupidity.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 4:23:20โฏPM11/24/18
to
put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
right to take them down, right?
Poor Klaus... he cannot stay consistent with his views.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 4:29:27โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:23:19 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:50:12 +0000 (UTC), American Thinker
>> <athi...@gopfags.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>> civil rights movement.
>>
>> That's right, everyone knows about the Great Thaumaturgic
>> Transformationโข, where Democrats decided it would be much easier to
>> claim they were Republicans than to admit they're a bunch of racist
>> assholes.
>>
>
>Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>right to take them down, right?
No, of course not.
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:50:12 +0000 (UTC), American Thinker
>> <athi...@gopfags.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>> civil rights movement.
>>
>> That's right, everyone knows about the Great Thaumaturgic
>> Transformationโข, where Democrats decided it would be much easier to
>> claim they were Republicans than to admit they're a bunch of racist
>> assholes.
>>
>
>Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>right to take them down, right?
Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 4:30:09โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:20:38 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 12:49 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one. Today's Republicans are yesteryear's Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
>Ah, if the Democrats are[..]
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 12:49 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one. Today's Republicans are yesteryear's Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
Like a typical troll, you repeat your same stupid question multiple
times.
More on Snit's trolling
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html
Over 100 people ridicule Snit
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
Typical Snit trolling methods
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 4:39:45โฏPM11/24/18
to
On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/24/18 12:49 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs
>>>> of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one.ย ย Today's Republicans are yesteryear's
>>> Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
> Ah, if the Democrats are the ones who pushed slavery and the KKK, then
> surely they have the right to take down THEIR confederate monuments
> which were erected as symbols of slavery and oppression, right?
>
> Klaus back pedals in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Or maybe he will just snip and Google seed. It is what he usually does
> when faced with his own stupidity.
>
Klaus did exactly as predicted. He cannot stop himself even when it is
> On 11/24/18 12:49 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs
>>>> of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one.ย ย Today's Republicans are yesteryear's
>>> Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
> Ah, if the Democrats are the ones who pushed slavery and the KKK, then
> surely they have the right to take down THEIR confederate monuments
> which were erected as symbols of slavery and oppression, right?
>
> Klaus back pedals in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Or maybe he will just snip and Google seed. It is what he usually does
> when faced with his own stupidity.
>
noted he cannot stop himself. LOL!
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 4:40:24โฏPM11/24/18
to
Below you try to change the topic to a claim I never made. You are
running again. You do that a lot.
> Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 4:42:02โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:39:43 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/24/18 12:49 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>>>
>>>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>>>
>>>>> A ruse that fools no one. Today's Republicans are yesteryear's Dixiecrats.
>>>>
>>>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>>>> bigoted as ever.
>>>>
>>>
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 11/24/18 12:49 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>>>
>>>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>>>
>>>>> A ruse that fools no one. Today's Republicans are yesteryear's Dixiecrats.
>>>>
>>>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>>>> bigoted as ever.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ah, if the Democrats are[..]
>>
>>Like a typical troll, you repeat your same stupid question multiple
>>times.
>>
>>More on Snit's trolling
>>http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html
>>
>>Over 100 people ridicule Snit
>>http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
>>
>>Typical Snit trolling methods
>>http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html
>>
>>Like a typical troll, you repeat your same stupid question multiple
>>times.
>>
>>More on Snit's trolling
>>http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html
>>
>>Over 100 people ridicule Snit
>>http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html
>>
>>Typical Snit trolling methods
>>http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html
>Klaus did exactly as predicted.
You're a liar. You did NOT predict I would like you look like an
idiot.
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 4:45:07โฏPM11/24/18
to
On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/24/18 12:49 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs
>>>> of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one.ย ย Today's Republicans are yesteryear's
>>> Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
> Ah, if the Democrats are the ones who pushed slavery and the KKK, then
> surely they have the right to take down THEIR confederate monuments
> which were erected as symbols of slavery and oppression, right?
>
> Klaus back pedals in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Or maybe he will just snip and Google seed. It is what he usually does
> when faced with his own stupidity.
>
Klaus responded a second time... merely spewing insults. LOL!
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs
>>>> of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one.ย ย Today's Republicans are yesteryear's
>>> Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
> Ah, if the Democrats are the ones who pushed slavery and the KKK, then
> surely they have the right to take down THEIR confederate monuments
> which were erected as symbols of slavery and oppression, right?
>
> Klaus back pedals in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Or maybe he will just snip and Google seed. It is what he usually does
> when faced with his own stupidity.
>
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 4:50:25โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:40:21 -0700, Snit
>Below you try to change the topic
No, I asked you a question which you ran away from, just as I
predicted you would.
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 2:29 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:23:19 -0700, Snit
>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/18 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:50:12 +0000 (UTC), American Thinker
>>>> <athi...@gopfags.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>>>> civil rights movement.
>>>>
>>>> That's right, everyone knows about the Great Thaumaturgic
>>>> Transformationโข, where Democrats decided it would be much easier to
>>>> claim they were Republicans than to admit they're a bunch of racist
>>>> assholes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>>> put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>>> right to take them down, right?
>>
>>No, of course not.
>>
>On 11/24/18 2:29 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:23:19 -0700, Snit
>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/18 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:50:12 +0000 (UTC), American Thinker
>>>> <athi...@gopfags.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>>>> civil rights movement.
>>>>
>>>> That's right, everyone knows about the Great Thaumaturgic
>>>> Transformationโข, where Democrats decided it would be much easier to
>>>> claim they were Republicans than to admit they're a bunch of racist
>>>> assholes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>>> put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>>> right to take them down, right?
>>
>>No, of course not.
>>
>>Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
>If they are the symbols of the Democrats why not?
I just told you.
>Below you try to change the topic
predicted you would.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 4:55:15โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:45:05 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
Uh-oh! Snit's broken again!
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
LOL
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 5:00:55โฏPM11/24/18
to
On 11/24/18 2:50 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:40:21 -0700, Snit
> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/18 2:29 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:23:19 -0700, Snit
>>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/24/18 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:50:12 +0000 (UTC), American Thinker
>>>>> <athi...@gopfags.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>>>>> civil rights movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right, everyone knows about the Great Thaumaturgic
>>>>> Transformationโข, where Democrats decided it would be much easier to
>>>>> claim they were Republicans than to admit they're a bunch of racist
>>>>> assholes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>>>> put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>>>> right to take them down, right?
>>>
>>> No, of course not.
>>>
>>> Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
>
>> If they are the symbols of the Democrats why not?
>
> I just told you.
Nope. You changed the topic to "special entitlements", as if it takes
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:40:21 -0700, Snit
> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/18 2:29 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 14:23:19 -0700, Snit
>>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/24/18 12:32 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:50:12 +0000 (UTC), American Thinker
>>>>> <athi...@gopfags.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs of the
>>>>>> civil rights movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right, everyone knows about the Great Thaumaturgic
>>>>> Transformationโข, where Democrats decided it would be much easier to
>>>>> claim they were Republicans than to admit they're a bunch of racist
>>>>> assholes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>>>> put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>>>> right to take them down, right?
>>>
>>> No, of course not.
>>>
>>> Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
>
>> If they are the symbols of the Democrats why not?
>
> I just told you.
such to remove your OWN symbols!
Face it, as you do so often you self nuked.
>> Below you try to change the topic
>
> No, I asked you a question which you ran away from, just as I
> predicted you would.
>
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 5:01:47โฏPM11/24/18
to
On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/24/18 12:49 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs
>>>> of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one.ย ย Today's Republicans are yesteryear's
>>> Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
> Ah, if the Democrats are the ones who pushed slavery and the KKK, then
> surely they have the right to take down THEIR confederate monuments
> which were erected as symbols of slavery and oppression, right?
>
> Klaus back pedals in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Or maybe he will just snip and Google seed. It is what he usually does
> when faced with his own stupidity.
>
Good grief... Klaus responded yet again with snipping all the content.
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs
>>>> of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one.ย ย Today's Republicans are yesteryear's
>>> Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
> Ah, if the Democrats are the ones who pushed slavery and the KKK, then
> surely they have the right to take down THEIR confederate monuments
> which were erected as symbols of slavery and oppression, right?
>
> Klaus back pedals in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Or maybe he will just snip and Google seed. It is what he usually does
> when faced with his own stupidity.
>
He is unable to stop himself.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 5:14:31โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:00:54 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>>>>> put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>>>>> right to take them down, right?
>>>>
>>>>No, of course not.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
>>
>>>If they are the symbols of the Democrats why not?
>>
>>I just told you.
>>
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>>>>> put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>>>>> right to take them down, right?
>>>>
>>>>No, of course not.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
>>
>>>If they are the symbols of the Democrats why not?
>>
>>I just told you.
>>
>>>Below you try to change the topic
>>
>>No, I asked you a question which you ran away from, just as I
>>predicted you would.
>>
>>No, I asked you a question which you ran away from, just as I
>>predicted you would.
>Nope. You changed the topic to "special entitlements",
Nope. No where did I use the term "special entitlements."
Again- Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 5:14:55โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:01:44 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
>Snit surrenders
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 5:16:26โฏPM11/24/18
to
On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 11/24/18 12:49 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs
>>>> of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one.ย ย Today's Republicans are yesteryear's
>>> Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
> Ah, if the Democrats are the ones who pushed slavery and the KKK, then
> surely they have the right to take down THEIR confederate monuments
> which were erected as symbols of slavery and oppression, right?
>
> Klaus back pedals in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Or maybe he will just snip and Google seed. It is what he usually does
> when faced with his own stupidity.
>
Klaus responded AGAIN. This post is clearly bothering him.
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 11:42:48 -0800, Rudy put on a dress and forged:
>>
>>> [followups vandalism just like Rudy does repaired]
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2018 10:50 AM, American Thinker wrote:
>>>> Republicans are now trying to pretend that they are the true heirs
>>>> of the
>>>> civil rights movement..
>>>
>>> A ruse that fools no one.ย ย Today's Republicans are yesteryear's
>>> Dixiecrats.
>>
>> Today's Democrats are the Democrats of the 1950's. Just as racist and
>> bigoted as ever.
>>
>
> Ah, if the Democrats are the ones who pushed slavery and the KKK, then
> surely they have the right to take down THEIR confederate monuments
> which were erected as symbols of slavery and oppression, right?
>
> Klaus back pedals in 3... 2... 1...
>
> Or maybe he will just snip and Google seed. It is what he usually does
> when faced with his own stupidity.
>
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 5:17:45โฏPM11/24/18
to
changed the topic from the question:
If those bigoted symbols are the Democrats then why can't the Democrats
remove them?
And off you run again.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 5:30:36โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:17:43 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 3:14 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:00:54 -0700, Snit
>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>>>>>>> put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>>>>>>> right to take them down, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, of course not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
>>>>
>>>>> If they are the symbols of the Democrats why not?
>>>>
>>>> I just told you.
>>>>
>>>>> Below you try to change the topic
>>>>
>>>> No, I asked you a question which you ran away from, just as I
>>>> predicted you would.
>>
>>> Nope. You changed the topic to "special entitlements",
>>
>> Nope. No where did I use the term "special entitlements."
>>
>> Again- Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
>>
>
>You snipped your wording -- you said "special rights"
Thanks for admitting that you lied.
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 3:14 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:00:54 -0700, Snit
>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hey, if it is the Democrats of today still tied to the Confederates who
>>>>>>> put up the monuments to racist and slavery, then surely they have a
>>>>>>> right to take them down, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, of course not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
>>>>
>>>>> If they are the symbols of the Democrats why not?
>>>>
>>>> I just told you.
>>>>
>>>>> Below you try to change the topic
>>>>
>>>> No, I asked you a question which you ran away from, just as I
>>>> predicted you would.
>>
>>> Nope. You changed the topic to "special entitlements",
>>
>> Nope. No where did I use the term "special entitlements."
>>
>> Again- Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
>>
>
>You snipped your wording -- you said "special rights"
>>If those bigoted symbols are the Democrats then why can't the Democrats
>>remove them?
>>
Again- Why do you think Democrats have special rights?
Try answering instead of running away, but I predict that's exactly
what you'll do.
[chuckle]
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 5:31:16โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:16:24 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
And........ Snit surrenders AGAIN!
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 2:20 PM, Snit wrote:
LOL
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 5:33:51โฏPM11/24/18
to
always avoid the question: why shouldn't the Democrats be allowed to
take down what you say are THEIR confederate monuments?
And off you run... so very, very predictable.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 5:56:39โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 15:33:49 -0700, Snit
Ah! I see why you're confused!
You angrily assumed that the Democratic Party somehow owned the
monuments!
[chuckle]
See? I could have schooled you on this much, much earlier if you had
only stopped your trolling and responded to my question!
Next time, OK?
[chuckle]
You angrily assumed that the Democratic Party somehow owned the
monuments!
[chuckle]
See? I could have schooled you on this much, much earlier if you had
only stopped your trolling and responded to my question!
Next time, OK?
[chuckle]
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 6:15:18โฏPM11/24/18
to
keep those monuments to slavery and oppression in places of respect.
See, he CAN learn, even if only slowly.
It is mostly conservatives -- Republicans -- who push to keep the
monuments to slavery and oppression. Period.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 6:33:31โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 16:15:15 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 3:33 PM, Snit wrote:
Nothing is funnier than Snit replying to himself, hoping everything
will just "go away."
LOL
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 3:33 PM, Snit wrote:
Nothing is funnier than Snit replying to himself, hoping everything
will just "go away."
LOL
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 7:55:52โฏPM11/24/18
to
On 11/24/18 3:33 PM, Snit wrote:
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 24, 2018, 8:05:27โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 17:55:49 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 3:33 PM, Snit wrote:
Looks like angry, broken Snit is getting REALLY desperate now!
Good!
LOL
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 3:33 PM, Snit wrote:
Looks like angry, broken Snit is getting REALLY desperate now!
Good!
LOL
Snit
Nov 24, 2018, 8:07:54โฏPM11/24/18
to
-----
No, no "new" guns have been invented since 1960.
-----
LOL!
Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner ๐ถ็ฌ
Nov 24, 2018, 10:04:42โฏPM11/24/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 16:15:15 -0700, LO AND BEHOLD; Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> determined that the following was of
great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<g5u4c3...@mid.individual.net>:
it appears that he would like us all to believe that those racist monument defending republicans are time-traveling democrats from 1890.
--
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECKยฎ VALIDATION]
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)
"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)
-
"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> determined that the following was of
great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
<g5u4c3...@mid.individual.net>:
--
[THIS POAST HAS PASSED TRIMCHECKยฎ VALIDATION]
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB6B8jGSdLA
"Thanks to muzzies and their apologist-enablers like puppy whistle, this
seems to be the new norm in the world. It's spreading like a cancer,
and it's time we admit we're at war with pure evil. We need to put an
end to this muzzie plague, or life on Earth is going to become pure hell
everywhere. We need to get these people out of every civilized
country, and there's only one way to do it. IOW, we have to become
like them, with an emphasis on expediency over cruelty." - Checkmate (of alt.checkmate)
"Pussy Willow has just proven that Trump's crackdown on previously
unenforced immigration policies is working. We'll deal with the domestic
terrorists as needed, but we don't need to be letting the muzzie
terrorists get a foothold in our country too. One need only look at what
they're doing in Europe right now to know we're doing the right thing by
keeping them out, which is our right and our duty. - Checkmate (#1 pussy willow fan)
-
"You just made puppy whistle's sig line longer." - Janithor
-
"If I have a complaint about the (Southern Poverty) Law Center's description (of the alt-right movement), it is the phrase "heavy use of social media," which implies the alt-right is a real-world movement which uses a lot of social media. This is backwards: it is an online movement which occasionally appears in the real world. Where it gets punched." - Jason Rhode
-
"I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic...@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfef...@news.altopia.com>
-
Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
Raymond
Nov 25, 2018, 3:09:31โฏAM11/25/18
to
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
Nov 25, 2018, 5:14:31โฏAM11/25/18
to
In article
<c35e1148351a0c03...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 25, 2018, 10:15:37โฏAM11/25/18
to
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:07:53 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>On 11/24/18 6:05 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 17:55:49 -0700, Snit
>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/18 3:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Looks like angry, broken Snit is getting REALLY desperate now!
>>
>> Good!
>>
>> LOL
>>
>
> Klaus:
> -----
> No, no "new" guns have been invented since 1960.
Correct.
>On 11/24/18 6:05 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 17:55:49 -0700, Snit
>> <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/18 3:33 PM, Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>> Looks like angry, broken Snit is getting REALLY desperate now!
>>
>> Good!
>>
>> LOL
>>
>
> Klaus:
> -----
> No, no "new" guns have been invented since 1960.
Snit
Nov 25, 2018, 11:51:06โฏAM11/25/18
to
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 25, 2018, 12:40:48โฏPM11/25/18
to
On 25 Nov 2018 16:51:05 GMT, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote:
From 1911:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
Siri Cruise
Nov 25, 2018, 1:18:55โฏPM11/25/18
to
In article <oknlvdppe206f4g6h...@4ax.com>,
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
Where's the automatic fire switch?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
An almond doesn't lactate. This post / \
Yet another supercilious snowflake for justice. insults Islam. Mohammed
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
Where's the automatic fire switch?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
An almond doesn't lactate. This post / \
Yet another supercilious snowflake for justice. insults Islam. Mohammed
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 25, 2018, 1:21:55โฏPM11/25/18
to
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:18:53 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>In article <oknlvdppe206f4g6h...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
>
>Where's the automatic fire switch?
Go to your local gun dealer and she'll show you.
wrote:
>In article <oknlvdppe206f4g6h...@4ax.com>,
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
>
>Where's the automatic fire switch?
Siri Cruise
Nov 25, 2018, 4:41:20โฏPM11/25/18
to
In article <i1qlvd1upu8jg6935...@4ax.com>,
In article <e4flvd1chrju9vuvs...@4ax.com>,
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:18:53 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <oknlvdppe206f4g6h...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
> >
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
> >
> >Where's the automatic fire switch?
>
> Go to your local gun dealer and she'll show you.
You don't know how to turn a 1911 pistol to automatic?
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 10:18:53 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <oknlvdppe206f4g6h...@4ax.com>,
> > Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
> >
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
> >
> >Where's the automatic fire switch?
>
> Go to your local gun dealer and she'll show you.
In article <e4flvd1chrju9vuvs...@4ax.com>,
Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@null.net> wrote:
> > Klaus:
> > -----
> > No, no "new" guns have been invented since 1960.
>
> Correct.
> > Klaus:
> > -----
> > No, no "new" guns have been invented since 1960.
>
> Correct.
Winston_Smith at EtSept
Nov 25, 2018, 5:40:14โฏPM11/25/18
to
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:40:47 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
of a hand operated milling machine is a fundamentally different kind
of gun. And God help us if some PR guy thinks of painting it pink for
the ladies.
>From 1911:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_M1911
Which was a refinement of his 1903 model. Of the 1902 model, of the
1900 model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Model_1903_Pocket_Hammer
Luger P-08 (Pistol 1908) was a competitor along with others in the
trials when the US adopted the 1911. The 1911 replaced it.
The Luger is a descendant of the Broomhandle (Mauser C96) of the
1800s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_C96
Which saw high capacity magazines for you AR haters.
Which was a descendant of ....... wikipedia takes it back at least 135
years to 1883.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol
"After Hiram Maxim introduced his recoil-powered machine gun in
1883, several gunsmiths set out to apply the same principles to
handguns, including Maxim. Maxim's designs for smaller firearms using
his recoil-powered ideas never went into production.
In the 1880s, other designers worked on self-loading designs. The
Schรถnberger-Laumann 1892 was the first semi-automatic pistol.
The first model to gain any commercial success was Hugo
Borchardt's C-93, which, together with the 7.65 mm Borchardt
cartridge, had been designed in 1893 and made its public debut in
1894. Borchardt based the principle of the C-93's mechanism in large
part upon Maxim's toggle-lock. The C-93 featured a locking mechanism
modeled after the human knee, which is called Kniegelenk in German
(knee joint). The C-93 proved mechanically reliable, but was too large
and bulky to receive widespread acceptance. Equipped with a screw-on
wooden stock, the C-93 served well as a small pistol carbine.
In 1896, Paul Mauser introduced the first model of his Mauser
"Broomhandle" semi-automatic pistol, the C96. This was the first
mass-produced and commercially successful pistol to have a
large-capacity, staggered-column magazine holding 10 or 20 rounds. Its
original cartridge was called 7.63 mm Mauser, which was more powerful
but otherwise identical to the 7.65 mm Borchardt. The Mauser was one
of the first self-loading pistols used extensively in battle, notably
the South African War of 1899-1902. These pistols were made in 7.63 mm
Mauser, or 9ร25 mm Mauser, along with some models eventually being
made in 9 mm Parabellum and a small number in .45 ACP for China.
1898 saw the Schwarzlose Model 1898, a semi-automatic pistol
invented by Prussian firearm designer Andreas Wilhelm Schwarzlose. It
was chambered for the 7.65ร25mm Mauser, but could also shoot the
weaker Borchardt ammunition. The Schwarzlose design was most advanced
and far ahead of its time, but not widely adopted with less than 1000
pieces being manufactured. Small lots were sold to the Boers and used
during the Boer War. Another lot was sold to members of the Russian
Social-Democratic Party who were plotting insurrection, but were
confiscated at the Russian border and issued to the Imperial Russian
Frontier Guards.
In Belgium in 1896 American gun designer John Browning developed
self-loading semi-automatic pistols. His models were first
manufactured in Europe by the Belgian firm of Fabrique Nationale (FN)
and later by Colt in the U.S. Browning's first successful design was
the Browning M1900. Like Georg Luger's work conducted around the same
time in Germany, it was desiged alongside a in 7.65 mm cartridge, but
the 7.65 mm Browning (aka .32 Auto) differs substantially from Luger's
7.65 mm Parabellum. Browning went on to design .25, .38, .380, and .45
ACP cartridges for his semi-automatic pistol designs.
Browning must be given credit for developing the type of
locked-breech action which is commonly used by the vast majority of
modern large caliber semi-automatic pistols.
One of Browning's most enduring designs was the Colt M1911, which
was adopted by the U.S. military as its service pistol and is still in
active use with some U.S. Special Forces and Marine Corps units."
But wait ---- there's more. Since the topic is "gun" not semi-autos --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun
Firearms first appeared in China where gunpowder was first developed.
The oldest known bronze barrel handgun is the Heilongjiang hand
cannon, dated to 1288. It is 34 centimeters (13.4 inches) long without
a handle and weighs 3.55 kg (7.83 pounds). The diameter of the
interior at the end of the barrel is 2.6 cm (1.0 inches). The barrel
is the lengthiest part of the hand cannon and is 6.9 inches long.
>On 25 Nov 2018 16:51:05 GMT, Snit wrote:
>>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018 18:07:53 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/18 6:05 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> Looks like angry, broken Snit is getting REALLY desperate now!
>>>>> Good!
>>>>> LOL
>>>> Klaus:
>>>> On 11/24/18 6:05 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>> Looks like angry, broken Snit is getting REALLY desperate now!
>>>>> Good!
>>>>> LOL
>>>> Klaus:
>>>> No, no "new" guns have been invented since 1960.
>>> Correct.
>>Show the Gloks and 3D printed guns from the 1960s.
Next, he's going to argue the same gun made on a CNC machine instead
>>> Correct.
>>Show the Gloks and 3D printed guns from the 1960s.
of a hand operated milling machine is a fundamentally different kind
of gun. And God help us if some PR guy thinks of painting it pink for
the ladies.
>From 1911:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_M1911
Which was a refinement of his 1903 model. Of the 1902 model, of the
1900 model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Model_1903_Pocket_Hammer
Luger P-08 (Pistol 1908) was a competitor along with others in the
trials when the US adopted the 1911. The 1911 replaced it.
The Luger is a descendant of the Broomhandle (Mauser C96) of the
1800s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauser_C96
Which saw high capacity magazines for you AR haters.
Which was a descendant of ....... wikipedia takes it back at least 135
years to 1883.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol
"After Hiram Maxim introduced his recoil-powered machine gun in
1883, several gunsmiths set out to apply the same principles to
handguns, including Maxim. Maxim's designs for smaller firearms using
his recoil-powered ideas never went into production.
In the 1880s, other designers worked on self-loading designs. The
Schรถnberger-Laumann 1892 was the first semi-automatic pistol.
The first model to gain any commercial success was Hugo
Borchardt's C-93, which, together with the 7.65 mm Borchardt
cartridge, had been designed in 1893 and made its public debut in
1894. Borchardt based the principle of the C-93's mechanism in large
part upon Maxim's toggle-lock. The C-93 featured a locking mechanism
modeled after the human knee, which is called Kniegelenk in German
(knee joint). The C-93 proved mechanically reliable, but was too large
and bulky to receive widespread acceptance. Equipped with a screw-on
wooden stock, the C-93 served well as a small pistol carbine.
In 1896, Paul Mauser introduced the first model of his Mauser
"Broomhandle" semi-automatic pistol, the C96. This was the first
mass-produced and commercially successful pistol to have a
large-capacity, staggered-column magazine holding 10 or 20 rounds. Its
original cartridge was called 7.63 mm Mauser, which was more powerful
but otherwise identical to the 7.65 mm Borchardt. The Mauser was one
of the first self-loading pistols used extensively in battle, notably
the South African War of 1899-1902. These pistols were made in 7.63 mm
Mauser, or 9ร25 mm Mauser, along with some models eventually being
made in 9 mm Parabellum and a small number in .45 ACP for China.
1898 saw the Schwarzlose Model 1898, a semi-automatic pistol
invented by Prussian firearm designer Andreas Wilhelm Schwarzlose. It
was chambered for the 7.65ร25mm Mauser, but could also shoot the
weaker Borchardt ammunition. The Schwarzlose design was most advanced
and far ahead of its time, but not widely adopted with less than 1000
pieces being manufactured. Small lots were sold to the Boers and used
during the Boer War. Another lot was sold to members of the Russian
Social-Democratic Party who were plotting insurrection, but were
confiscated at the Russian border and issued to the Imperial Russian
Frontier Guards.
In Belgium in 1896 American gun designer John Browning developed
self-loading semi-automatic pistols. His models were first
manufactured in Europe by the Belgian firm of Fabrique Nationale (FN)
and later by Colt in the U.S. Browning's first successful design was
the Browning M1900. Like Georg Luger's work conducted around the same
time in Germany, it was desiged alongside a in 7.65 mm cartridge, but
the 7.65 mm Browning (aka .32 Auto) differs substantially from Luger's
7.65 mm Parabellum. Browning went on to design .25, .38, .380, and .45
ACP cartridges for his semi-automatic pistol designs.
Browning must be given credit for developing the type of
locked-breech action which is commonly used by the vast majority of
modern large caliber semi-automatic pistols.
One of Browning's most enduring designs was the Colt M1911, which
was adopted by the U.S. military as its service pistol and is still in
active use with some U.S. Special Forces and Marine Corps units."
But wait ---- there's more. Since the topic is "gun" not semi-autos --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun
Firearms first appeared in China where gunpowder was first developed.
The oldest known bronze barrel handgun is the Heilongjiang hand
cannon, dated to 1288. It is 34 centimeters (13.4 inches) long without
a handle and weighs 3.55 kg (7.83 pounds). The diameter of the
interior at the end of the barrel is 2.6 cm (1.0 inches). The barrel
is the lengthiest part of the hand cannon and is 6.9 inches long.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 25, 2018, 6:14:33โฏPM11/25/18
to
0 new messages