UT alum
-
Posts
2,005 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by UT alum
-
-
On 9/6/2023 at 7:15 PM, LumRaiderFan said:
Over 60 of the nays were democrats, lol.
I know the history, just not the revisionist version you like to repeat.
By the way, the democrat president you’re so proud of was a hardcore racist.
But he overcame his prejudice and did the right thing. Trump has no self awareness. Only self aggrandizement.
-
On 9/8/2023 at 11:46 AM, baddog said:
I’ve said this about the defunders and people releasing prisoners…….it has to happen to them for them to realize what they are doing is wrong. Who the heck thinks like that? No police and release prisoners. It has to all be a part of the big picture…. The destruction and takeover of this country. Sure feels good to see it backfire on these idiots. I’m glad she got attacked. It’s how much she cares about me.
Glad she got attacked? That’s mighty Christian of you. Can you explain how defunding the FBI is any different?
-
On 9/7/2023 at 7:59 AM, baddog said:
Trump loves the military and respects the fallen and the brave. Biden and Obama hate the military and Obama wouldn’t even salute them. Biden didn’t protect them during the Afghanistan withdrawal and stranded Americans in a hostile country. How is that better? It’s not and you know it.
I’ll come closer to agreeing with you on Obama and Biden in that statement than I ever will Trump. He uses the military to make himself look patriotic. No one who understands the symbolism of it would ever hump an American flag displayed on a stage where he’s speaking.
-
37 minutes ago, UT alum said:
I know the history. A Democratic President’s signature is on the bills. The Voting Rights Act passed July 9, 1965 by a 333-85 vote. Democrats 221-61 (18% against), Republicans 112-24 (20% against). Therefore, it passed without needing any Republican votes. The Voting Rights Act passed the house August 9, 1965 by a vote of 328-74. Democrats
Top of page 2.
-
34 minutes ago, UT alum said:
I know the history. A Democratic President’s signature is on the bills. The Voting Rights Act passed July 9, 1965 by a 333-85 vote. Democrats 221-61 (18% against), Republicans 112-24 (20% against). Therefore, it passed without needing any Republican votes. The Voting Rights Act passed the house August 9, 1965 by a vote of 328-74. Democrats
I screwed up and submitted before finished. Go to the top of page three to read my full reply if you want.
-
I know the history. A Democratic President’s signature is on the bill. The Voting Rights Act passed by a 333-85 vote in the House. Democrats 222-61 (18% against), Republicans 112-24 (20% against). Therefore it passed without the need of any Republican votes. The Civil Rights Act passed the house August 3, 1965. Democrats 217-64 (30% against) Republicans 111-20 (18% against). Only 1 Republican vote needed to pass. In the Senate on August 4, 1965 the vote was 79-18. Democrats 49-17, Republicans 30-1. Only two Republican votes needed to pass. Spin it ever how it want. Those are the facts. Not all democrats were from the south. Nixon knew how pissed the Dixiecrats were, hence the southern strategy to move in and get the southern racist vote. Like I said, it’s all about the votes for any party. Learn your history.
-
23 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:
Have you heard me crowing about Republican purity, absolutely not, I don’t care for them much either. Stop making stuff up out of thin air.
You are the one defending a racist, corrupt party, not me.
I see you won’t bother to look into the voting percentages and pushback on the Civil Rights Act.
I know the history. A Democratic President’s signature is on the bills. The Voting Rights Act passed July 9, 1965 by a 333-85 vote. Democrats 221-61 (18% against), Republicans 112-24 (20% against). Therefore, it passed without needing any Republican votes. The Voting Rights Act passed the house August 9, 1965 by a vote of 328-74. Democrats
-
On 8/15/2023 at 12:44 PM, Reagan said:
Trump Has Been Charged by the Epitome of a Kangaroo Court . . . But There’s a Bright Side!
From the article:
"It isn’t often that I quote Wikipedia, but their definition of “Kangaroo Court” perfectly describes what’s happening to President Trump:
Kangaroo court is an informal pejorative term for a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc. A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term is also used for a court held by a legitimate judicial authority, but which intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations (compare show trial).
None of that sounds any different from what’s being done to President Trump today.
The people aren’t happy and are voicing their concerns on social media:
Mike Cernovich: Today the rule of law fell.
Joel Pollak: An indictment in the dead of night fits perfectly well with this Democratic plot against democracy and justice.
Julie Kelly: As I’ve said repeatedly. This isn’t about 2020. It’s about 2024. Dissent about the outcome of a presidential election is now criminalized. Lawsuits, investigations, protest, social media posts—all activity we’ve seen for decades. All now illegal in the USA.
Stephen Miller: Just so you understand the new system: the most corrupt democrat jurisdictions will criminally charge you if you challenge their corruption.
Abe Hamadeh: It’s simple. Our country will not survive this continuous assault on the rule of law. Any suggestion that the party needs to abandon Trump to make it all go away would only reward the Democrats destructive behavior. It’s time for Republicans to unite behind President Trump.
”
You’re really going to quote Stephen Miller and Kari Lake to bolster an argument?
-
34 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:
lol, I could see this bogus answer coming a mile away so it's not surprising.
Dixiecrats, right? lol
Spin it how you want, democrats are the party of racism...period.
Always have been, always will be.
You really should look at the numbers on who voted for and against the Civil Rights Act AND who was most adamantly opposed to it. Your modern democrat party had one thing in mind...votes.
Every political party in the history of our country has one thing in mind - votes. It’s a democratic system. No votes, no power. You can crow about your sanctimonious claim of Republican purity when it comes to race. Ever hear of the southern strategy? Also, what party was in control of the house, senate, and presidency when the civil rights legislation was passed. If you don’t know, it was Democrats. Now, if we’re such a party of racists, how could bills like that even get to the floor for a vote? Your argument is weak as pond water.
-
30 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:
lol, I could see this bogus answer coming a mile away so it's not surprising.
Dixiecrats, right? lol
Spin it how you want, democrats are the party of racism...period.
Always have been, always will be.
You really should look at the numbers on who voted for and against the Civil Rights Act AND who was most adamantly opposed to it. Your modern democrat party had one thing in mind...votes.
-
4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:
These guys were all from your side, don't forget that.
Even in modern times who was it that was turning dogs out on minorities and standing on steps preventing entry, it wasn't Republicans.
That’s because there were no Republicans because of what your party did to reconstruction. Carpetbaggers weren’t Democrats. Again, an attempt to rewrite history without analyzing any context. The modern Democratic Party got the Civil Rights act passed and the Voting Rights act passed. Again, twisting history to fit your narrative is in the conservative playbook now.
-
9 hours ago, baddog said:
Trump will pardon him.
Criminals stick together.
-
14 hours ago, Reagan said:
From the article:
"Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted of “seditious conspiracy” due to his role in the January 6 Capitol protests that he never even attended.
He wasn’t in the Capitol, but received the longest sentence.
Federal prosecutors had asked for Tarrio to be sentenced to 33 years in federal prison. By way of comparison, the average murder sentence in D.C. is seven years."
The general never takes to the field. What does an average murder sentence have to do with anything? There are a range of charges and many things affect sentencing as well. Seditious conspiracy, there is no average sentence because it hasn’t happened enough to get an average. In my book, it’s attempted murder of the Constitution. No range of charges on that one. He got what he deserved.
-
Just now, LumRaiderFan said:
Nope, your side doesn't want that either.
Yes, some of us do. Your side wants to lionize them and sanitize what they did and stood for. Our side does not want history to forget.
-
6 hours ago, BS Wildcats said:
A total disgrace to the office. Got yourselves a good one, UT alum and big girl.
See my reply to Reagan. And yeah, he’s infinitely better than the one he beat.
-
19 hours ago, Reagan said:
Man, that’s such BS. No quote from Lt. Lawrence, just a picture of him touching his eye. Could’ve been a tear of emotion from the ceremony. Could have been a gnat. I’m sure he knows not to question his commander in chief (i.e. chain of command). In other words, not news. Opinion. That’s why pundit is a propaganda rag, not legitimate journalism.
-
1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:
They do like to tear statues down.
Danged straight. Put them in a museum, teach the history of what they’ve done, but don’t honor sworn (and defeated) enemies of the US.
-
5 hours ago, thetragichippy said:
If I claimed you never told the truth, would you consider that a compliment or insult?
I call it hyperbole.
-
21 hours ago, baddog said:
A Mark Twain quote…. the writer of Huckleberry Finn. Thought you leftys banned that book for racial overtones, but you’ll quote him to make a point. The hypocrisy of the left is alive and well.
You’re out of your mind. Mark Twain was called the father of American literature by William Faulkner. Liberals don’t ban books, either. Conservatives do. Some advocated for a change of the offensive words used, and I think that’s BS. You ever read Uncle Tom’s Cabin? History must be taken in context, and taught in context. That’s why the right wants to obliterate it. Or any other authoritarian form of leadership for that matter.
-
-
1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:
He's probably celebrating the 264 million views his Trump interview received, or the 12.9 million views of his last interview.....or anticipating the number of views he gets interviewing the man who claims he had sex with Obama (after one hour, already at 4.3 million views.
It's OK you don't like Tucker, but insulting the man personally instead of addressing the subject of his interviews is typically what the extreme left does.
I've watched all of his interviews.....he's a journalist and ask questions......verus debating his guest like CNN......I have always thought journalist ask questions and political hacks posing as journalist debate their guest......am I wrong? Should Journalist argue points with peple they are interviewing?
What I read on Reagan’s post was a screed, not journalism. How, might I ask, did I insult him? Sounds kind of snowflakey to me.
-
1 hour ago, baddog said:
Just curious, which truths do you follow?
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain
-
Tucker Carlson. The same man who detested Trump privately but was a minion in public (where he was paid a princely sum). Yeah, he’s gonna give us the truth. Nixon’s dirty tricksters, led by Donald Segretti chased Muskie off, then sabotaged Sargent Shriver, effectively killing any chance McGovern had of even coming close. Nixon was going to fight until Barry Goldwater went to the White House and told Nixon he could not get 60 votes in the Senate to avoid conviction. Tucker Carlson never tells the truth. He manipulates opinions and treats them like facts. Where is he now, by the way?
-
On 9/3/2023 at 8:05 AM, 5GallonBucket said:
Do you have any realization of the fact that every generation at least back to the days of prohibition have said the same thing? It’s a loser’s argument.
This Gets Me
in Political Forum
Posted
We fought in Korea and Vietnam against communism. It didn’t even exist until after WWI. Communist Russia was an ally in WWII. Wars since Vietnam have been against religious extremists or authoritarian dictators. 36,000 in Korea, 58,000 In Vietnam. Tragic, every one, but well short of “hundreds of thousands”. These particular radicals are not fomenting revolution. They’re exercising their First Amendment rights. Remember “Jews will not replace us.”? Nazi revolutionists are okay, I guess. Many people defended their right to free speech. Quit using half truths as fact.