On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 20:55:23 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 11:29:39 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:
snip
RogerN



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqhoVIh65k

Makes Libs head explode....VBG

This video was next up after the one you posted. Just stating history, true
history, not revisionist history.

How would you know, Roger? You've never demonstrated any familiarity
with the original documents before. How would you know what is
"revisionist"?

No wonder Democrats lie, the truth is
that bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVm267AEGFA

Absolute claptrap. Frederick Douglass was NOT a "discoverer" of the
intent of the three-fifths clause. Anyone who has actually read the
history of the time knows that it was a compromise for representative
apportionment, and had nothing specifically to do with slavery, one
way or the other. This was widely known among those who paid attention
to the politics of the time.

Douglass wasn't even born until 1818. If he was told that the
Constitution was "pro-slavery," it was by some southern apologist, not
by a historian.

This is high-school history, Roger, if you paid attention.

The rest of this polemic is hard to figure out, until it starts
hammering at pre-Goldwater Democrats. The general thrust of the
history he's talking about is the standard issue. That's what you
would have learned if you had paid attention in school. There is
nothing "revisionist" about it.

But there is an agenda going on here. This video, obviously, is aimed
at people with little education about American history. It ends its
story in 1956. That's a very strange time to end it. It totally
ignores the political-affiliation upheaval that occurred over the next
20 years or so.

There is something curiously, willfully stupid about the way Gunner
approaches these issues. He has a deep-seated mechanism tuned for
rejection of uncomfortable things, and a sort of half-assed propaganda
style. Your case is somewhat more curious. I do not believe that you
don't know about the north/south coalition in the Democratic Party
before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the liberal/conservative
upheaval that occurred after it was passed. Nor do I believe that
you're ignorant of the fact that conservative southern Democrats
switched their allegiance to the Republican Party after the Civil
Rights Act, Barry Goldwater's "state's rights" campaign, and,
especially, Nixon's Southern Strategy; shifting to such a degree that
most high offices in the South themselves switched from Democratic
hands to Republican hands, even though it was the same people voting.

You're not that stupid. Yet, you continue to play these games, as if
you don't know what this is all about -- that Democrats of the 1950s
are the same party as Democrats of the 2010s.

The only people you convince with any of this propaganda that you
perpetuate is people who are strongly in need of support for their
prejudices. Maybe you count yourself among them. Possibly, you have
convinced yourself that they are true.

Too bad. However, if you stick to your parochial view of the world,
and don't move around too much, you probably can live the rest of your
life in a state of delusion, with little or no negative consequence.

--
Ed Huntress