Civil Rights protests are always unpopular, but almost always win in the end.

[dukkha]

You miss the point.

The form of protest doesn't matter - any protest for equal rights has generally been met w/ fierce resistance, throughout not just our history but world history.

You're on the wrong side of that history.

As I always say - progressive thought always prevails in the end.

No, I addressed that point,and I can guaranteed you this protest is not picking up popular support

[domer76]

Perhaps you could provide some actual history, so I can evaluate the supposed perspective you claim that I lack.

Or perhaps you cannot.

Loser.

Elle Magazine had a headline, so it must be true. lol

Read some fucking history, boytard, I can’t teach you everything. Apparently, NOBODY can teach you much of anything.

[domer76]

Are you under the impression that repeating a falsehood makes it correct?

Loser.

Are you aware of your own willful ignorance?

[Русский агент]

Elle Magazine had a headline, so it must be true. lol Read some fucking history, boytard, I can’t teach you everything. Apparently, NOBODY can teach you much of anything.

It appears that you cannot provide any actual history, as I suspected.

Loser.

[Русский агент]

Are you aware of your own willful ignorance?

Are you able to successfully demonstrate that your assessment is correct?

I doubt it, but try. It will amuse me, and keep you off the street corner.

Loser.

[domer76]

Are you able to successfully demonstrate that your assessment is correct?

I doubt it, but try. It will amuse me, and keep you off the street corner.

Loser.

Elle Magazine headline cited as “proof”.

Hell, I’m still getting a good chuckle out of that cretinous gem! Just as the pathetic laughability of “Is Vietnam in America?” was just wearing off. Thanks, God Bless Tards, you are truly the gift that keeps on giving!

[TheDonald]

Elle Magazine headline cited as “proof”.

Hell, I’m still getting a good chuckle out of that cretinous gem! Just as the pathetic laughability of “Is Vietnam in America?” was just wearing off. Thanks, God Bless Tards, you are truly the gift that keeps on giving!

DOW 23000.........................that's proof silly
https://www.google.com/search?newwin....0.0Qn62vYsgfg

[domer76]

DOW 23000.........................that's proof silly
https://www.google.com/search?newwin....0.0Qn62vYsgfg

lol

What a pitiable attempt at deflection.

Fucking loser.

[Amadeus]

Looked to me like something you saw on TV, Canadian.

You do know the difference between some guy making a claim on television and history, don't you?

'Some guy' was THE Republican strategist, who hilariously gave away the real Repubican strategy throughout the Civil Rights era and beyond.

"Southern Strategy"

As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of the interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of The New York Times. On November 13, 2012, The Nation magazine released a 42-minute audio recording of the interview.[10] James Carter IV, grandson of former president Jimmy Carter, had asked and been granted access to these tapes by Lamis' widow. Atwater talked about the Republican Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger". By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger".[11][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

[Русский агент]

'Some guy' was THE Republican strategist, who hilariously gave away the real Repubican strategy throughout the Civil Rights era and beyond.

I know who he was, comic book Canadian. He was "a" former Republican strategist. Singular. Not "the" Republican strategist. There were plenty before him, there were several others while he was alive, there are others now, and there will be others in the future.

He was one guy. You found something he said on TV that you liked and pretended it's history. Hilarious.

There's no evidence that what he was relating on TV is "history", Canadian, any more than Game of Thrones is "history".

If you're such an expert on Republicans, how come you can't seem to spell "Republican", Canadian?

Fun fact: Atwater died of a brain tumor. Ed Rollins stated that "Atwater was telling this story about how a Living Bible was what was giving him faith and I said to Mary Matalin, 'I really, sincerely hope that he found peace.' She said, 'Ed, when we were cleaning up his things afterwards, the Bible was still wrapped in the cellophane and had never been taken out of the package,' which just told you everything there was. He was spinning right to the end".

So he was hardly credible, was he Canadian?

[Amadeus]

I know who he was, comic book Canadian.

You said he was 'some guy', and I don't think you understood the gravity of his admission until you desperately researched who he was. You can't 'white-wash' Republican history, just as you can't distance yourself from Trump (the ultimate destination the Republican party plotted during the Southern Strategy).

You're probably a 20-something-basement dweller who is new to politics. Quick, who did you vote for in 2004?

[Русский агент]

You said he was 'some guy', and I don't think you understood the gravity of his admission until you desperately researched who he was. You can't 'white-wash' Republican history, just as you can't distance yourself from Trump (the ultimate destination the Republican party plotted during the Southern Strategy). You're probably a 20-something-basement dweller who is new to politics. Quick, who did you vote for in 2004?

It's cute that you continue to spew false premises, assumptions, and suppositions as though they are facts, comic book Canadian.

Get back to me when (and if) you learn to separate fact from fiction.

[Amadeus]

blah blah blah

Who did you vote for in 2004?

[Русский агент]

Who did you vote for in 2004?

That's none of your business, Canadian. BTW, in the United States, we have secret balloting, just like you Canucks do. Of course, we had it before you did.

Even if I told you, how would you be able to verify my veracity?

Things people tell you on the internet that cannot be verified are as relevant and reliable in a political discussion as the Game of Thrones clips you cadge from YouTube.

You're so child-like in your simplicity. Dishwashing at Tim Horton's is a good career choice for you.

[Amadeus]

That's none of your business, Canadian.

So either you didn't vote, or you're afraid to reveal your choice. Neither is a good option, especially since you're fucking anonymous. Haha you're such a pathetic loser.