Ted Cruz Calls Out Democrats As The ‘Party Of The Ku Klux Klan’

[dfwgator]

I grew up south of the Mason-Dixon line and they were still burning school buses in Boston so their kids didn't have to go to school with 'those people', seven years after our schools had been fully integrated.

Hypocrites. Rules for thee...

Randy Newman said it best.....


Rednecks

Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show
With some smart ass New York Jew
And the Jew laughed at Lester Maddox
And the audience laughed at Lester Maddox too
Well he may be a fool but he's our fool
If they think they're better than him they're wrong
So I went to the park and I took some paper along
And that's where I made this song

We talk real funny down here
We drink too much and we laugh too loud
We're too dumb to make it in no Northern town
And we're keepin' the bleep down

We got no-necked oilmen from Texas
And good ol' boys from Tennessee
And colleges men from LSU
Went in dumb. Come out dumb too
Hustlin' 'round Atlanta in their alligator shoes
Gettin' drunk every weekend at the barbecues
And they're keepin' the bleep down

We're rednecks, we're rednecks
And we don't know our ass from a hole in the ground
We're rednecks, we're rednecks
And we're keeping the bleep down

Now your northern bleep's a Negro
You see he's got his dignity
Down here we're too ignorant to realize
That the North has set the bleep free

Yes he's free to be put in a cage
In Harlem in New York City
And he's free to be put in a cage on the South-Side of Chicago
And the West-Side
And he's free to be put in a cage in Hough in Cleveland
And he's free to be put in a cage in East St. Louis
And he's free to be put in a cage in Fillmore in San Francisco
And he's free to be put in a cage in Roxbury in Boston

They're gatherin' 'em up from miles around
Keepin' the bleep down

We're rednecks, we're rednecks
And we don't know our ass from a hole in the ground
We're rednecks, we're rednecks
And we're keeping the bleep down
We are keeping the bleep down

[Smokin Joe]

http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

[Smokin Joe]

Randy Newman said it best.....


Rednecks

Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show
With some smart ass New York Jew
And the Jew laughed at Lester Maddox
And the audience laughed at Lester Maddox too
Well he may be a fool but he's our fool
If they think they're better than him they're wrong
So I went to the park and I took some paper along
And that's where I made this song

We talk real funny down here
We drink too much and we laugh too loud
We're too dumb to make it in no Northern town
And we're keepin' the bleep down

We got no-necked oilmen from Texas
And good ol' boys from Tennessee
And colleges men from LSU
Went in dumb. Come out dumb too
Hustlin' 'round Atlanta in their alligator shoes
Gettin' drunk every weekend at the barbecues
And they're keepin' the bleep down

We're rednecks, we're rednecks
And we don't know our ass from a hole in the ground
We're rednecks, we're rednecks
And we're keeping the bleep down

Now your northern bleep's a Negro
You see he's got his dignity
Down here we're too ignorant to realize
That the North has set the bleep free

Yes he's free to be put in a cage
In Harlem in New York City
And he's free to be put in a cage on the South-Side of Chicago
And the West-Side
And he's free to be put in a cage in Hough in Cleveland
And he's free to be put in a cage in East St. Louis
And he's free to be put in a cage in Fillmore in San Francisco
And he's free to be put in a cage in Roxbury in Boston

They're gatherin' 'em up from miles around
Keepin' the bleep down

We're rednecks, we're rednecks
And we don't know our ass from a hole in the ground
We're rednecks, we're rednecks
And we're keeping the bleep down
We are keeping the bleep down

Because some guy from L.A. Knows all about the South? Ri-ight.

[TomSea]

Texas had its last high-profile lynching in 1998 with James Byrd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.

Dinesh Disouza's movie covered all of this about the Klan and the Democratic party but whatever Cruz can do to get in some grandstanding, so be it.

Listen to Rush today to know what Cruz will say tomorrow.

[Sanguine]

Texas had its last high-profile lynching in 1998 with James Byrd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.

Dinesh Disouza's movie covered all of this about the Klan and the Democratic party but whatever Cruz can do to get in some grandstanding, so be it.

Listen to Rush today to know what Cruz will say tomorrow.

That was disgusting crime, but it wasn't a lynching, regardless of what Wikipedia calls it.  You will also note the following:

Byrd's lynching-by-dragging gave impetus to passage of a Texas hate crimes law. It later led to the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, commonly known as the Matthew Shepard Act, which passed on October 22, 2009, and which President Barack Obama signed into law on October 28, 2009.[2]

Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed by lethal injection for this crime by the state of Texas on September 21, 2011.[3] King remains on Texas' death row while appeals are pending,[4][5][6] while Berry was sentenced to life imprisonment.

So, what is your point, @TomSea?  You want me to find incidents of racially motivated crimes that did not occur in Texas?  Then what? 

And, you're implying a relationship between Limbaugh and Cruz?  That's crazy. 

[sneakypete]

  author=dfwgator link=topic=248383.msg1223400#msg1223400 date=1486736166]
Randy Newman said it best.....

Bleep Randy Newman and the camel he rode in on. SOB is one of the biggest racists and bigots going.
 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Of course it did. President Lincoln,the "Great Emancipator" never freed ONE single slave. The Emancipation Proclamation ONLY applied to the slaves held in the south,which he had no dominion over at the time. The purpose of it was to encourage the slaves to revolt and start murdering the wives and children of their masters so the Confederate troops would desert to go home to protect their familes.

That's simply not true.  There were plenty of slaves in the South who were freed due to the Proclamation every time Union troops took more southern territory, which happened pretty consistently throughout the war.  The union would take a town/city/county, and the slaves would be considered free because of the Proclamation.

Also, Lincoln pushed extremely hard for the passage of the 13th Amendment by the House in late 1964.  It was his top priority, and he brought every bit of pressure he could to get it passed by the House, which had previously rejected it.  He was successful.

[Smokin Joe]

That's simply not true.  There were plenty of slaves in the South who were freed due to the Proclamation every time Union troops took more southern territory, which happened pretty consistently throughout the war.  The union would take a town/city/county, and the slaves would be considered free because of the Proclamation.

Also, Lincoln pushed extremely hard for the passage of the 13th Amendment by the House in late 1964.  It was his top priority, and he brought every bit of pressure he could to get it passed by the House, which had previously rejected it.  He was successful.

Pete is 100% correct. Lincoln had no authority over the States "in Rebellion" or the people in them, any more than I can declare women in Iran don't have to wear headgear. The sole purpose of the proclamation, aside from inciting the abolitionists on the home front to support the war, was an attempt at economic sanctions (think taking the tractors away from Midwest farmers) and the vague hope of a slave revolt.
That didn't happen, and his generals had to loot and burn their way across the South.

[Norm Lenhart]

Texas had its last high-profile lynching in 1998 with James Byrd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd_Jr.

Dinesh Disouza's movie covered all of this about the Klan and the Democratic party but whatever Cruz can do to get in some grandstanding, so be it.

Listen to Rush today to know what Cruz will say tomorrow.

Oh irony, where is thy sting?

"
Re: The end of Sarah Palin is here
« Reply #42 on: February 07, 2017, 02:46:18 PM »

    Quote

As usual, I guess I'm taking Ted Cruz's actual position, not criticizing Palin, which he went on record of doing before.

As usual, the Cruz cult don't follow what he said but stone others who don't see things like they do.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 02:48:45 PM by TomSea »
Report to moderator

[sneakypete]

That's simply not true.  There were plenty of slaves in the South who were freed due to the Proclamation every time Union troops took more southern territory, which happened pretty consistently throughout the war.  The union would take a town/city/county, and the slaves would be considered free because of the Proclamation.

@Maj. Bill Martin

 HorseHillary stacked 12 feet tall is still HorseHillary. The Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free ONE SINGLE SLAVE IN THE NORTH at the time the speech was made,and Lincoln did NOT have the legal authority to free the slaves in the south at that time because the south wasn't under his dominion. The SOLE purpose of giving the speech and publishing the proclamation was to encourage slaves in the south to revolt and murder their masters women and children in order to cause Confederate Army officers to desert their posts and go home to protect their families.   I suspect it was Grant or some other General that came up with this idea and "sold" it to Lincoln as a cheap way to start a guerilla war in the enemy's rear,and thereby shorten the war.

IF the Emancipation Proclamation had been a serious thing,it would have immediately freed the slaves still being held in the north. It didn't.
 
 

[Silver Pines]

Dinesh Disouza's movie covered all of this about the Klan and the Democratic party but whatever Cruz can do to get in some grandstanding, so be it.

@TomSea

Do you even realize how schizophrenic your Cruz posts are?  You constantly veer from praising him to deriding him to praising him again.  Often in the same day, or even the same thread.

Did he steal your girlfriend?  Because it's not normal.

[Silver Pines]

Randy Newman said it best.....
/quote]


@dfwgator

That has-been didn't do anything besides advertise his rock-bottom ignorance.   A redneck is a man who spends time outside in the sun, a laborer, a blue collar worker.  Only progressives hold such men in contempt.  I'd invite that hamster on two legs to come down to central Virginia and give us his opinion, face to face.

[DiogenesLamp]

@sneakypete

I didn't know that, no.  But I think the man has to be given credit for keeping the Union together.

Look, I'm a lifelong born and raised Southerner, and I used to get pinged to those TOS threads where the Civil War was fought over and over again.  I didn't have much input to give, other than to smack down the occasional moron who tried to blather about Northern superiority.  That's what gets me going...not reasons why the South should have won.  I can love the South with all my heart, while still recognizing that slavery was wrong, and so was splitting the Union.  It was only a hundred years before that men gave their blood to birth it, after all.

I realize that's heresy to a segment of Southerners, but that's my take on it. 

This woke me up as to what was really going on. 







3/4ths of all money earned in trade was from Southern produced products,  but almost all the money was ending up in New York.  Independence for the South represented a *HUGE*  loss of money to the wealthy men of the North East.   Wealthy men who came to be called "Industrialists"  and "Robber Barons" and such.   

[Smokin Joe]

That has-been didn't do anything besides advertise his rock-bottom ignorance.   A redneck is a man who spends time outside in the sun, a laborer, a blue collar worker.  Only progressives hold such men in contempt.  I'd invite that hamster on two legs to come down to central Virginia and give us his opinion, face to face.

It wouldn't do any good unless you can break it down into words of less than two syllables. He'd never understand the rebuttal.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes,slavery was an issue,but a MINOR issue. The real root cause was the agricultural south was wanting to ship their goods out of southern ports without giving the northern financiers a chance to dip their beaks into the profits. It was originally about collecting customs fees and keeping Customs firmly in the hands of the NY banks.

That was the original prime reason,and the reason they obviously didn't want brought out front and center for everyone to see. So they allowed the anti-slavery advocates to occupy center stage.

In addition, one aspect of the anti-slavery factor was the northern factory owners dreaming of being able to hire former slaves to work in their factories because the European immigrants working for poverty wages with no benefits or days off were starting to get uppity,and wanting to form unions and earn enough to get out of company housing and own their own houses. Face it,a slave that  has never earned a living would look at a nickel a hour back then as big money,and be so happy to get it he wouldn't rock the boat.

Then there was the whole Department of Defense "industry" of insiders giving government contracts to their relatives at inflated prices to furnish the union army with necessities,and others who dreamed of being the "new Princes" in a "south of occupation" to the mix.

The biggest issue in MY mind was the bald-faced illegality of Lincoln declaring war to force the south to stay in the union against their will,when the union was clearly a voluntary union,and each member had a legal right to leave it if the rules were changed.[/b]

This is very close to what I have pieced together on my own from information I have only discovered in the last year. 


Southern independence represented a huge money loss to very wealthy and powerful men who had the Corporate-Lawyer-President's ear.    Northern industry could not afford to allow the South to trade freely with Europe because it would cause a financial catastrophe for Northern industries. 


Not only would the North lose the 40% of all profits they were skimming from the Shipment, warehousing,  insurance,  etc of Southern Products sent to Europe,   that 40% extra profit going to the South would have capitalized them sufficient to build competing industries with the Northern Factory/Shipping/Banking/Insurance/etc  owners.   


It was worse than that.  The South would have quickly moved to supply goods and services to the Midwest,  and it wouldn't be long before those states would be brought under the influence of the Southern state to the point where they joined the Confederacy.   


Leaving the South alone would have cost the North East  virtually all the power it had accumulated up to that point.   


A war was absolutely necessary if they were going to salvage their fortunes and their industries,   and their man in the White House was going to make it happen.   


Of course they couldn't tell everyone they were going to war over greed.  That wouldn't sell.   They had to make it about something noble,  like "Preserving the Union",   or "Freeing the slaves."   


The underlying and hidden truth is that they had to go to war to keep their financial power. 

[sneakypete]

This woke me up as to what was really going on. 







3/4ths of all money earned in trade was from Southern produced products,  but almost all the money was ending up in New York.  Independence for the South represented a *HUGE*  loss of money to the wealthy men of the North East.   Wealthy men who came to be called "Industrialists"  and "Robber Barons" and such.

@DiogenesLamp

And there you have it.

Not only that,but many of the banking families that set off the War of Northern Aggression in order to protect their profits are still in banking and are still pulling the strings today.

[Silver Pines]

This woke me up as to what was really going on. 




3/4ths of all money earned in trade was from Southern produced products,  but almost all the money was ending up in New York.  Independence for the South represented a *HUGE*  loss of money to the wealthy men of the North East.   Wealthy men who came to be called "Industrialists"  and "Robber Barons" and such.

@DiogenesLamp


I don't want or need to be awakened.  I'll say again that I'm not interested in fighting a war that ended 150 years ago.

[sneakypete]

This is very close to what I have pieced together on my own from information I have only discovered in the last year. 

@DiogenesLamp

There is a basic ugly truth that almost no one wants to admit to,but anytime you need to figure out why someone is doing something,just ask yourself
"Who profits most?",and you will almost always have your answers as to "Who?" and "Why".

What makes it really easy is it is almost always the same people,the international banking familes that own private banks that own other banks. These are the people behind globalism.

Southern independence represented a huge money loss to very wealthy and powerful men who had the Corporate-Lawyer-President's ear.    Northern industry could not afford to allow the South to trade freely with Europe because it would cause a financial catastrophe for Northern industries. 

Bingo! "Who profits most?" strikes again!

Not only would the North lose the 40% of all profits they were skimming from the Shipment, warehousing,  insurance,  etc of Southern Products sent to Europe,   that 40% extra profit going to the South would have capitalized them sufficient to build competing industries with the Northern Factory/Shipping/Banking/Insurance/etc  owners.   


It was worse than that.  The South would have quickly moved to supply goods and services to the Midwest,  and it wouldn't be long before those states would be brought under the influence of the Southern state to the point where they joined the Confederacy.   


Leaving the South alone would have cost the North East  virtually all the power it had accumulated up to that point.   


A war was absolutely necessary if they were going to salvage their fortunes and their industries,   and their man in the White House was going to make it happen.   


Of course they couldn't tell everyone they were going to war over greed.  That wouldn't sell.   They had to make it about something noble,  like "Preserving the Union",   or "Freeing the slaves."   

Sounds kinda noble,doesn't it? You can't  help but wonder where humanity manages to find these great humanitarians.

The underlying and hidden truth is that they had to go to war to keep their financial power.

Yup. Don't shed any tears for them,though. They made a LOT more money from stealing all the land and industries in the south during Reconstruction than they would have made through their port monopoly.

"Reconstruction" was a literal license to steal and murder in the name of selfishness and greed,and they made the most of it.

[DiogenesLamp]

@sneakypete, it's just not plausible to say the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.  Come on.  Even you, after claiming it didn't, said in your next paragraph well, yes, it did.

Slavery had nothing to do with why Lincoln went to war.   Lincoln went to war because his North Eastern Robber Baron backers needed the Army to stop the South from establishing trade with Europe.   


When I was in Jr High and we were learning about the civil war,  the history teacher told me something that puzzled me for years.   He told me the "Blockade"  was absolutely crucial to winning the war.




The reason this didn't make sense to me was because French perfume wouldn't have helped the South much in the war.   It didn't make any sense to blockade commercial shipping between Europe and the South because as it turned out,  the South never seemed to want for Guns and Soldiers.   They had plenty enough to fight for years until their population was exhausted.   


Supposing the blockade could stop men or arms from reaching the South,  you could say it had some military purpose,  but I couldn't see European men lining up to volunteer to fight in the Civil War,   and the South could already make it's own guns,  so you really weren't cutting off anything essentially military.   


So what was the blockade for?    For the longest time,  I thought they had done it simply to give the Navy something to do.   After all,  the fight was with the Army,  and you had to have soldiers to hold any ground you took.   


It is only when you look at the blockade as a commercial  blockade for commercial reasons that it starts to make any sense.   


If the Europeans had been able to trade freely with the South,   they would have made much larger profits than they did with the trade funneling through New York and the very high tariffs in place in the Union.    Had the Europeans been able to realize the much greater profits,  and had they been able to establish much more commercial trade,   they would have likely thrown in with the South's attempt to be independent.   


Stop European profit,  and you stop Europeans from allying themselves with the South.   


You never let them have a taste of the much lower tariffs in the South,  so they don't develop a vested interest in the independence of the South.   You also keep the South from getting their hands on that European money without it first being funneled through New York. 


You protect the Northern industries by throwing up that blockade. 

[sneakypete]

@DiogenesLamp


I don't want or need to be awakened.  I'll say again that I'm not interested in fighting a war that ended 150 years ago.

@DiogenesLamp   @CatherineofAragon

You don't get it. That war is STILL going on today. It is and always has been a culture war.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's simply not true.  There were plenty of slaves in the South who were freed due to the Proclamation every time Union troops took more southern territory, which happened pretty consistently throughout the war.  The union would take a town/city/county, and the slaves would be considered free because of the Proclamation.

Also, Lincoln pushed extremely hard for the passage of the 13th Amendment by the House in late 1964.  It was his top priority, and he brought every bit of pressure he could to get it passed by the House, which had previously rejected it.  He was successful.

Which is oddly contradictory to the fact that he supported the original proposed 13th amendment. 


http://cognoscenti.legacy.wbur.org/2013/02/18/the-other-13th-richard-albert

[TomSea]

The North had the factories and had the food, the South didn't.

Sounds like revisionism, skirmishes were already going on in KS and MO; to try to lay all of this on the North.

The South was going to become a slave majority anyway. The North should have allowed those demographics to occur but that would have been a real blood bath.

Economy in The Civil War

A War of Unequals

Economically, the Civil War was not a contest between equals. The South had no factories to produce guns or ammunition, and its railroads were small and not interconnected, meaning that it was hard for the South to move food, weapons and men quickly and over long distances. In addition, though agriculture thrived in the South, planters focused on cash crops like tobacco and cotton and did not produce enough food to feed the southern population. The North, on the other hand, had enough food and enough factories to make weapons for all of its soldiers. It also had an extensive rail network that could transport men and weapons rapidly and cheaply. At first, this superiority of the North didn't seem to make much of a difference; like many wars in history, those involved thought it would be over quickly. But northern advantages would prove crucial as the war dragged on.

The differences in manpower and industrial capacity were so profound that the fact that the South almost won the war was a shock to observers all over the world. On paper, there was no way that the South could possibly have stood up to the North, which had all of the material and financial advantages, and which did an excellent job of closing off the only advantage the South did have: cotton. Since most of the South's money came from exporting cotton the North aimed to shut this trade down. One of the very first things the Union government did was to blockade southern ports. The blockade took some time to become operational, but after the capture of New Orleans the amount of southern cotton exported to England plummeted. With it went the South's only consistent form of income, something it desperately needed to defeat the North.
The Southern Economy

With the loss of its cotton exports, the South was in big trouble. It had lost its banking system—which had been headquartered in New York—and held no gold or silver reserves. There were various forms of paper money printed by the states and even by some private banks, but overall people did not trust paper money, unless it was explicitly backed by gold. Without gold and without banks, the Confederacy did the only thing it could: it printed money. Lots and lots of money. However, it could not do much to collect taxes to support this huge printing effort because the Confederate Constitution forbade the central government from imposing taxes on the states, and left it up to each individual state to tax its citizens. As in the American Revolution decades before, states collected little money and, thus, the Confederacy was left nearly broke. The Confederate government levied taxes in 1864, but by that time it was too late to do much good. With money flooding the market, its value fell dramatically, and horrendous inflation dogged the Confederate war effort from beginning to end.

Continued: http://www.shmoop.com/civil-war/economy.html

[TomSea]

South fired on the North; Fort Sumter.

April 12 - 14, 1861
Charleston Harbor, South Carolina

On April 12, 1861, General P.G.T. Beauregard, in command of the Confederate forces around Charleston Harbor, opened fire on the Union garrison holding Fort Sumter. At 2:30pm on April 13 Major Robert Anderson, garrison commander, surrendered the fort and was evacuated the next day.

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/fort-sumter.html

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp


I don't want or need to be awakened.  I'll say again that I'm not interested in fighting a war that ended 150 years ago.

Well there it is.   You aren't aware that it has never ended.    The same people are still fighting it.   New York and the Wealthy Elite,  versus everyone else.   Corporate Robber Barons who are morally superior to all of us "Fly Over Country"  Yokels,  still want to preach their latest moral enlightenment to the rest of us. 


New York, in crony-capitalist bed with Washington DC,  pretty much runs America.   Same now as it was in 1865. 

[DiogenesLamp]

@DiogenesLamp   @CatherineofAragon

You don't get it. That war is STILL going on today. It is and always has been a culture war.

That's not accurate.   It was a war over money first.   The cultural aspects of it are a consequence of the new Aristocracy needing to feel they are morally superior to everyone else.   

Being Wealthy isn't enough to satisfy them.  They want to believe they are superior human beings,  and so they latch hold onto whatever is the latest new morality,  and it use it to bash the "dirt people"  who don't keep up with their latest moral enlightenment.   


They are the "Cloud People",  and they are better than everyone else.   They will tell you so if you listen carefully.