Banning groups with confederate affiliations

[Arctish]

If you think his Ban the Democratic Party bill is beautifully satirical, you're gonna love

WTF? The fact that the guy can write good satire doesn't mean I think he is a genius or even that I agree with his politics.

This is a good example of the problem I have with partisan politics and the fools who get sucked into it. They assume that anything done or said by anyone in their party is 'gods truth'. Anything done or said by anyone in the opposing party is idiotic. No thinking involved, just knee-jerk reaction.

I think perhaps you have mistaken the work of an intern for the writing of Rep. Gohmert himself. And I think perhaps you think he thinks it's satire, whereas I think Gohmert thinks his bill is a brilliant display of logic and intelligence.

 

[Patooka]

To say that Louie Gohmert can understand or practice satire, ironically, is making satire rather obsolete. A modern day Sam Clemens he is not. He's just a dumb cunt. Recent events have confirmed that conclusively.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That he is a kook is not in dispute. Buyer beware. If he said the earth is flat some would see satire some would see idiot. He likes to apply labels, that much is certain.

 

[laughing dog]

I think it is adorable there are some people who feel Mr. Gohmert is clever enough to engage in satire.

I think it's adorable that you think you can recognize satire.

Coming from a libertarian, that is hilarious.

 

[laughing dog]

I think it is adorable there are some people who feel Mr. Gohmert is clever enough to engage in satire.

The fact that he wrote such a beautifully satirical bill and you are incapable of recognizing it as such pretty much demonstrates what I said above about the extreme left wing was spot on... Thanks for the confirmation.

A reader capable of nuanced reading comprehension and thinking understands that there is distinct difference between a writer intending satire and a reader projecting satire. So thank you for your confirmation.

 

[SimpleDon]

Since we are cleansing our history of statues and et cetera that have ties to the old south, the confederacy, and slavery, it seems time to do something about groups that have that connection.

GOP Rep Introduced Bill to Ban Democratic Party for Past Support of Slavery

On Thursday, Republican Texas Representative Louie Gohmert introduced a House resolution that would ban the Democratic Party and any other groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the United States.

"Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party's loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn't so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan," Gohmert said in a statement.

Some people say there was some mythical big switch that took place sometime around the 1960s. I don't see it. After all, have to get behind someone in order to stab them in the back.

Thank you for not falling into the trap of overreacting to things that you apparently still don't understand with yet another white male grievance thread.[/cynical & insincere flattery]

Statues don't convey history to the viewer nor do they explain it. They glorify the subject and the cause the subject fought for. The confederate soldiers committed treason in order to maintain slavery. Which do you want to glorify, committing treason or slavery?

Libertarians have been accused of both, treason because they have the irrational belief that the government is not needed* and should be overthrown because anarchy is preferable to democratic governments that facilitate the tyranny of the majority and the return of slavery in the libertarian paradise of maximum individual freedom that is coming as people will be able to sell themselves or their children into slavery.

* except to guarantee property rights and to adjudicate contracts, because that is the one thing that government gets right today, civil lawsuits.​

As for you not being able to see the switch of the race-baiting bigots from the Democratic party to the Republican party starting in the 1960s, I am not surprised. Libertarians aren't noted for their critical thinking skills or their grasp of reality or they wouldn't be libertarians, would they?

I would have to guess what has produced this huge hole in your knowledge.

Do you not know that the racist Dixiecrats in the Democratic party were in the South, your beloved and worthy of glorifying Confederacy?

Do you not know that the Democratic party's moderates and liberals and the Republican party's moderates and liberals combined to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in the face of opposition from the Dixiecrats and the conservatives of the Republican party?

Perhaps you missed that at first, the disaffected Southern Dixiecrats tried the third party route with "segregation now, segregation forever" George Wallace in 1968, resulting in the election of the soon to be felon, Ricard Nixon to the presidency?

Or that because of this election the Republicans realized that together with the racists in the South they would have an electoral majority just four years after going down to one of largest defeats in history? That all they had to do was to swallow their principles and to make room in the Republican party for the southern racists?

That you missed that the assumulation of the southern racists into the Republican party was slowed by the Watergate scandals but was on in full force with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the Republican party's grasp of neoliberalism and movement conservatism, which added appeals to religious fundamentalists, misogynists, xenophobics, homophobes, and gun cultists to the southern racists?

That the Republican party kept moving to the right to become more extreme, taking advantage of the need of conservatives to believe a constant stream of lies that society and the economy don't have to change in the face of constant change in the most dynamic country in the world? Leading up to the inevitable pseudo-fascism of Trumpism.

Tell me which of these you were aware of and I will fill in the rest.

I am at a loss to explain what a lifetime of ignorance has done to you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Since we are cleansing our history of statues and et cetera that have ties to the old south, the confederacy, and slavery, it seems time to do something about groups that have that connection.

GOP Rep Introduced Bill to Ban Democratic Party for Past Support of Slavery

On Thursday, Republican Texas Representative Louie Gohmert introduced a House resolution that would ban the Democratic Party and any other groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the United States.

"Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party's loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn't so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan," Gohmert said in a statement.

Some people say there was some mythical big switch that took place sometime around the 1960s. I don't see it. After all, have to get behind someone in order to stab them in the back.

Thank you for not falling into the trap of overreacting to things that you apparently still don't understand with yet another white male grievance thread.[/cynical & insincere flattery]

Statues don't convey history to the viewer nor do they explain it. They glorify the subject and the cause the subject fought for. The confederate soldiers committed treason in order to maintain slavery. Which do you want to glorify, committing treason or slavery?

Libertarians have been accused of both, treason because they have the irrational belief that the government is not needed* and should be overthrown because anarchy is preferable to democratic governments that facilitate the tyranny of the majority and the return of slavery in the libertarian paradise of maximum individual freedom that is coming as people will be able to sell themselves or their children into slavery.

* except to guarantee property rights and to adjudicate contracts, because that is the one thing that government gets right today, civil lawsuits.​

As for you not being able to see the switch of the race-baiting bigots from the Democratic party to the Republican party starting in the 1960s, I am not surprised. Libertarians aren't noted for their critical thinking skills or their grasp of reality or they wouldn't be libertarians, would they?

I would have to guess what has produced this huge hole in your knowledge.

Do you not know that the racist Dixiecrats in the Democratic party were in the South, your beloved and worthy of glorifying Confederacy?

Do you not know that the Democratic party's moderates and liberals and the Republican party's moderates and liberals combined to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in the face of opposition from the Dixiecrats and the conservatives of the Republican party?

Perhaps you missed that at first, the disaffected Southern Dixiecrats tried the third party route with "segregation now, segregation forever" George Wallace in 1968, resulting in the election of the soon to be felon, Ricard Nixon to the presidency?

Or that because of this election the Republicans realized that together with the racists in the South they would have an electoral majority just four years after going down to one of largest defeats in history? That all they had to do was to swallow their principles and to make room in the Republican party for the southern racists?

That you missed that the assumulation of the southern racists into the Republican party was slowed by the Watergate scandals but was on in full force with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the Republican party's grasp of neoliberalism and movement conservatism, which added appeals to religious fundamentalists, misogynists, xenophobics, homophobes, and gun cultists to the southern racists?

That the Republican party kept moving to the right to become more extreme, taking advantage of the need of conservatives to believe a constant stream of lies that society and the economy don't have to change in the face of constant change in the most dynamic country in the world? Leading up to the inevitable pseudo-fascism of Trumpism.

Tell me which of these you were aware of and I will fill in the rest.

I am at a loss to explain what a lifetime of ignorance has done to you.

I agree with you 95% here, but I'd like to point out a thing related to one of your paragraphs:

Statues don't convey history to the viewer nor do they explain it. They glorify the subject and the cause the subject fought for. The confederate soldiers committed treason in order to maintain slavery. Which do you want to glorify, committing treason or slavery?

I agree that statues glorify the subject and as such they may indirectly lift up the causes the subject fought for. Where I disagree is that technically, most statues are mounted on a platform and have a plaque affixed to the platform. Almost always there is a plaque. The whole thing is really the statue as opposed to the mere person. Now in the case of Confederate generals and KKK founders and the sorts under discussion, the plaques almost always mythicize the individual with revisionist history and Lost Cause ideology. So, the plaques are worshipping a false past of White Supremacy and part of a whole neo-confederate lunacy, at best.

Let's actually look at one to see:

All of the text is difficult to read but note the phrases "he performed every duty with an eye single(?) to the public welfare and his own unblemished honor ... in loving remembrance of his noble life and character." Emphasis added. Slavery was not in the interest of public welfare. Neither was racism. Every single thing he did was not noble or in the best interest of society. The main point being that statues do mythicize a person and indirectly their causes, but in the case of Confederate statues, there is also a DIRECT message in addition to the indirect one.

[As an aside, while this guy was a Democrat the ideological inheritors of the belief system of the region and culture are now Republicans. I know you are aware, but I wanted to mention it because political party is a subject in part of the thread op. His family more or less founded Berryville, Arkansas. The Democrats held that more or less up to 1967 when Rep James W Krimble lost to a Republican, John Paul Hammerschmidt. Since 1967, ONLY Republicans have won this 3rd district of Arkansas. The latest representative is Steve Womack who tried to write a bill to defund Barak Obama's teleprompter in 2011. He continues to win elections by about 75% to 25%. He also has a painting in his office Advance the Flag of Dixie with Confederate flag which some have complained about. So, yeah, the parties have come full circle.]