Democrats Want Civil War over Slavery: Again

Try to get the philosophy correct instead of the label, moron. Their party could have any name. The name is meaningless. They were CONSERVATIVES. You're a conservative, too. Makes sense.

That you think the Democrats or Republicans of today are the same parties as 150 years ago demonstrated your massive ignorance. You're not alone, though. Many of your RW friends display the same stupidity

If that were true the Democrat party would have changed its name after its rancid history concerning this matter. They did not.
 
Try to get the philosophy correct instead of the label, moron. Their party could have any name. The name is meaningless. They were CONSERVATIVES. You're a conservative, too. Makes sense.

That you think the Democrats or Republicans of today are the same parties as 150 years ago demonstrated your massive ignorance. You're not alone, though. Many of your RW friends display the same stupidity

What you're doing isn't any different by claiming someone who holds conservative viewpoints today would be in support of slavery 150 years ago.
 
Try to get the philosophy correct instead of the label, moron. Their party could have any name. The name is meaningless. They were CONSERVATIVES. You're a conservative, too. Makes sense.

That you think the Democrats or Republicans of today are the same parties as 150 years ago demonstrated your massive ignorance. You're not alone, though. Many of your RW friends display the same stupidity

they could have true. But the democrats of 150 years ago and the democrats of today use the same arguments as to why the slavery in their current day is good
 
If that were true the Democrat party would have changed its name after its rancid history concerning this matter. They did not.

It's the Democratic Party, stupid fuck. And you don't know "if/would" from shit. "If/would" is the argument of a clueless loser. Now, concoct some other bullshit, why dontcha?
 
so no response in other words

To a concocted "if/would"? Have you ever heard "hypothesis contrary to fact"? It's a logical fallacy used by imbeciles that have no cogent point. It treats hypothetical situations as if they were fact. That's what this moron has done and fools like you buy it every time.

You go ahead and respond to that kind of bullshit, dumbfuck. I don't fall for it.
 
What you're doing isn't any different by claiming someone who holds conservative viewpoints today would be in support of slavery 150 years ago.

You're just not very bright, are you? Maintaining focus on what's actually posted is very difficult for you, isn't it?
 
It's no game pointing out that kind of horseshit. Don't like being called out on your feces? Easy remedy. Don't try to pull that kind of bullshit.

You are trying to compare today's conservatives to slave owners. You are full of sh*t.
 
It's the Democratic Party, stupid fuck. And you don't know "if/would" from shit. "If/would" is the argument of a clueless loser. Now, concoct some other bullshit, why dontcha?

Exactly. The Democrat party. Slavery. Thanks for perfectly making my point.
 
You are trying to compare today's conservatives to slave owners. You are full of sh*t.

Idiot. I'm saying the slave owners of the day were CONSERVATIVES. It's you morons that are playing the game of party labels. The Republican Party of today has no resemblance to Lincoln's Party.
 
Exactly. The Democrat party. Slavery. Thanks for perfectly making my point.

Jesus, you are a stupid fuck. Can't even comprehend a simple post. Once again, cretin.

1) CONSERVATIVES
2) It's correct name is the Democratic Party

Fuck. How does one as dense as you make it through the day?
 
The republicans have always been the anti-slavery party.


:dunno:

Back to the imbecilic use of labels. CONSERVATIVES were the slave owners. Slap whatever label you want in them. They're still CONSERVATIVES.

Did any of you idiots get through high school?
 
Back
Top