Another Terrorist Attack From "The Religion of Peace"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Of course, they could just be disgruntled mall employees, and it will be classed as "work related violence".

Radical muslims make me feel so warm and secure

You right wingers are pissing them off with your constant threads about Obama being born there.

Look at our recent history, Christian’s in the USA where bombing churches killing kids and hang people in the South. It doesn’t matter the name of the religion it is the people.

Those weren't Christians. Those were Democrats.

Look at our recent history, Christian’s in the USA where bombing churches killing kids and hang people in the South. It doesn’t matter the name of the religion it is the people. Originally Posted by theotherguy1

Those weren't Christians. Those were Democrats. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Leave it to a Turdfly to (only) tell one side of the story. How convenient!

For the record: Shortly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the aforementioned (Southern) "Democrats" became (Southern) Republicans.

--------------

From Wikipedia: The (Civil Rights) bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway." Senator Richard Russell, Jr. warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election". Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican party by the 1990s.

Leave it to a Turdfly to (only) tell one side of the story. How convenient!

For the record: Shortly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the aforementioned (Southern) "Democrats" became (Southern) Republicans.


The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican party by the 1990s. Originally Posted by bigtex

Now that we "know" what you mean by "shortly"!!

..... 26 years?

Also, if you look at the statewide races (as in Governor and LT Governor) you will see that the Democrats have held their own through Ann Richards with a couple of blips until 1995 and LT Governor through 1999.

As the Democratic Party shifted farther to the left with Presidential candidates (like your favorites) more voters have defected toward an "independent" category and also some notable Democrats have switched to the Republican Party or "Independents" based on a philosophical divide and differences.

The "single party" system in Texas from the "reconstruction" period through the LBJ-Connally era was IMO not "healthy" politically for Texas and neither is a Republican dominance .... a more balanced party existence, IMO, provides a higher quality of candidate seeking office, rather than the "good ole boy" shoe-ins that have historically maintained the strangle-hold on various offices.

Contrary to your "conclusion" I do not consider how a State goes in the Presidential election as an indication of what party dominates the landscape in that State. On the day to day operations affecting the voters, the local and state offices have a greater impact for the most part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/wo...anted=all&_r=0

Of course, they could just be disgruntled mall employees, and it will be classed as "work related violence". Originally Posted by Jackie S

I guess ..stay away from malls in Kenya?

Those weren't Christians. Those were Democrats. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Contrary to your "conclusion" I do not consider how a State goes in the Presidential election as an indication of what party dominates the landscape in that State. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I was merely responding to your Lapdog (Turdfly) only telling one side of the story when he said the following:

"Those weren't Christians. Those were Democrats."

My response was: "For the record: Shortly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the aforementioned (Southern) "Democrats" became (Southern) Republicans."

While on the subject, didn't you once claim that you used to be a Democrat before the Democratic Party left you? If that were the case, when did the Democratic Party leave you? Was it about the same time (1964) that the Democratic Party left Senator Strom Thurmond?

Just sayin'

------------------------------------

From Wikipedia: James Strom Thurmond (December 5, 1902 – June 26, 2003) was an American politician who served for 48 years as a United States Senator. He ran for president in 1948 as the States Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat) candidate, receiving 2.4% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes. Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican.

Look at our recent history, Christian’s in the USA where bombing churches killing kids and hang people in the South. It doesn’t matter the name of the religion it is the people. Originally Posted by theotherguy1

That's ridiculous.

The people who did those killings might have been Christians, but that doesn't mean the killings were religiously motivated, especially since their victims were also Christians.

Those killings were racially motivated, not religiously motivated.

When the Mafia kills people who get in their way, do you refer to it as "Catholics" killing people?

Leave it to a Turdfly to (only) tell one side of the story. How convenient!

For the record: Shortly after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the aforementioned (Southern) "Democrats" became (Southern) Republicans.

--------------

From Wikipedia: The (Civil Rights) bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway." Senator Richard Russell, Jr. warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election". Johnson, however, went on to win the 1964 election by one of the biggest landslides in American history. The South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican party by the 1990s. Originally Posted by bigtex

More revisionist history from BigKotex and the Dimtards. Those people had a (D) by their name just like President Lincoln had an (R). The vast majority of those lynchings occurred before 1945 by Democrats. By the 1990s, they were long dead - not Republicans.

BT and his brothers. http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/0...-muslim-woman/

BT and his brothers. http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/0...-muslim-woman/ Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Every time you post you show your stupidity LOL

Every time you post you show your stupidity LOL Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Every time you post, you prove your stupidity...LOL

Every time you post, you prove your stupidity...LOL Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB