USS GABRIELLE GIFFORDS ??????? WTF !!!!!!!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

If someone shoots you in the head there would be no damage at all, as there is nothing there to damage.

hahaha, that's something a ten year old would write. Now we all know your age.

Jim

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

hahaha, that's something a ten year old would write. Now we all know your age.

Jim

and that was simply BRILLIANT wasn't it?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by CJ7

and that was simply BRILLIANT wasn't it?

You're probably a couple of weeks behind him.

Jim

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You're probably a couple of weeks behind him.

Jim

whew, that was dazzling too ! one more post, maybe two, and you'll need a nap ..

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by CJ7

whew, that was dazzling too ! one more post, maybe two, and you'll need a nap ..

You Mad Bro?




Jim

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You Mad Bro?




Jim

naw, U ?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by CJ7

naw, U ?

Nope, I had my nap, lol.............

Jim

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by WTF

No he was showing the naivety of your suggestion.

How about slave owners? Should they have things named after them?

All we are doing is arguing politics when we discuss dumbass shit like this, despite your ascertain to the contrary.

That was my point. You will never be able to take the politics out of these things and somebody will always find something offensive about who ever gets named. I find Reagan offensive and think him the one responsible for the GOP to spend at any cost with the mantra that the end justifies the means ... as you have so demonstrated.


http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm

Of the first five presidents, four owned slaves. All four of these owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#6-10), four owned slaves. Only two of them owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next five presidents (#11-15), two owned slaves. Both of these two owned slaves while they were president.

Of the next three presidents (#16-18) two owned slaves. neither of them owned slaves while serving as president.

The last president to own slaves while in office was the twelfth president, Zachary Taylor (1849-1850).

The last president to own slaves at all was the eighteenth president, Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877).

So twelve of our presidents owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while serving as president.

Nice WTF... here is my rebuttal...


Democratic Party's History Related to Slavery


Do you really know the Democratic Party's history related to slavery in early America? I did some research this evening and found some interesting facts on this subject. Today the Democrats would have you believe that it was the Republicans who were responsible for suppression of the black Americans of early America. They would tell you it is the Republicans that want to keep black Americans from succeeding even in this modern day. They are lying and trying hard to "change" history with their political spin.

The Facts

If you look at the voting records of the early Democrats and the Republicans it becomes very apparent as to which party has done more to end slavery and give black Americans the rights they deserve - the same rights all Americans deserve. The freedom of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness given us all by God himself. How have the Democrats gotten the role of friend and saviour of the black population? Is it just that no one takes the time to research history? I believe it is more sinister than that. I believe the Democrats have to play the role of friend and saviour to Black Americans to be able to continue their agenda of Big Government and Nanny State policies. The message seems to be "we (Democrats in Government) will take care of you as we do not think you are capable of doing that yourself." I also believe that the Democrat party is the true "racist" party of the past and today. They hold people back from fulfilling their potential by offering handouts and hand ups for those who are the "under privileged" and "under capable" in their eyes. All men and women are created equal - we are all in control of our own destiny. We do not need Government to take care of us - we are capable of doing for ourselves.

The True History of Slavery in American Politics

1862 - President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia
D-37% voted YES
R-99% voted YES
1865 - 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate
D-63% voted YES
R-100% voted YES
1866 - U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens
D-100% voted NO
R-94% voted YES
1870 - 15th Amendment is ratified, granting the right to vote to all Americans regardless of race
D-97% voted NO
R-98% voted YES


This was So Wrong

Source: http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu
More "lost" facts about the Democrats and Slavery

If you look at the Democrats National Committee website you will find that there are about 50 years of pertinent history missing. The missing information falls right in to the time frame of Democrats supporting slavery and fighting to keep slavery going in this country. There were six initiatives supporting slavery, numerous Democrat Presidents who "owned" slaves, and many instances of Democrats voting for racial segregation during those 50 years. It was also during this time that the Democrat Party officially labeled itself as the "White Man's Party."

In 1877 the Jim Crow Laws of Segregation were set forth by the Southern Democratic Party. The laws segregated Blacks from Whites and further divided American citizens.

University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's once described the Ku Klux Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party." Columbia University Eric Foner referred to the KKK as "a military force of the Democratic Party" For more on this check out this web article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html

I believe that the Democrats today still feel as though they need to continue the suppression of Black Americans. Don't take my word for it - do your own research and see what you find.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Nope, I had my nap, lol.............

Jim

my best naps are during a NASCAR race ... coming SOON

[WTF]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Nice WTF... here is my rebuttal...


Democratic Party's History Related to Slavery


Do you really know the Democratic Party's history related to slavery in early America?
.

Your rebuttal shows your lack of understanding regarding political history. What you posted was for folks that are not able to put context to history. Yes the Democrats had a history of racism but that racism and voters move to the GOP after the Southern strategy was implemented. I think JD falls for that line of reasoning too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]
Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.
The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon and Republican Senator Barry Goldwater[6][7] in the late 1960s.[8] The strategy was successful in winning 5 formerly Confederate states in both the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began attempting to appeal to black voters again, though with little success.[8]
In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the NAACP for ignoring the black vote and exploiting racial conflicts.[9][10]

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

hahaha, that's something a ten year old would write. Now we all know your age.

Jim

What was that rattling I heard? Were you shaking your head? With your response to me I was only trying to respond to you on your level.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What was that rattling I heard? Were you shaking your head? With your response to me I was only trying to respond to you on your level.

The only thing you heard was the hamster in your head turning that squeaky little wheel, lol.

Jim

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

I understand perfectly...

It does not make it apolitical. It just makes it political 5 years after their death. Something you seem to be having a hard time grasping.

It will always be political, no matter the time frame. If that reality makes me a idiot, then I'm fine with it.

Re-read this part of Post No. 56:

"Re-read above. The 5 year period is NOT political if it is applied to everyone.

And while the selection AFTER death may still be political, that is a different issue. The 5 year period avoids an unpleasant situation where a nominee disgraces himself or herself - regardless of their party."

I never said it would NOT be political after 5 years. In fact I said the OPPOSITE.

You are STILL trying to put words in my mouth. You really ARE getting to be like IBLying.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by WTF

IB please let me smack exNYer around on this one...for some reason he thinks after five years dead folks become apolitical.

That's at least the third time you tried to put words in my mouth. To make your idiocy even worse, you put a laughing emoticon after it.

So again, re-read this part of Post No. 56:

"Re-read above. The 5 year period is NOT political if it is applied to everyone.

And while the selection AFTER death may still be political, that is a different issue. The 5 year period avoids an unpleasant situation where a nominee disgraces himself or herself - regardless of their party."

I never said it would NOT be political after 5 years. In fact I said the OPPOSITE.

You are STILL trying to put words in my mouth. You really ARE getting to be like IBLying.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by LordBeaverbrook

Hardly. "The ship's sponsor will be Roxanna Green, the mother of Christina-Taylor Green, age 9, who was killed in the Tucson shooting that wounded Giffords in January 2011."

You conservatives have a double standard for everything, don't you? Patriotism, courage, service, honor, duty - Dems, Liberals and Progressives don't qualify for any of it, no matter what, but the most craven cowardly, lying, sniveling conservative (Bundy and his "patriots" militia men who were going to hide behind the women and children) is all that and a bag of chips to you without examination or reservation apparently. Pathetic, simply pathetic.

You know you wanted the ship named the U.S.S. Cliven Bundy, didn't you?

She was shot while performing the duties of her job which was serving the public. Exactly like a cop who gets injured or killed in the line of duty (plenty of police get injured or killed without ever getting the chance to pull their weapon or do anything heroic other than perform their duties). In fact it is also just like a soldier who gets injured or killed in the line of duty in or out of a combat zone. It takes no courage to be a soldier who goes to a combat zone - they get ordered there. There are plenty of safe non-stressful jobs in "combat zones" that take no courage and the odds of getting killed are less than driving a car (say supply Sargent or aircraft mechanic or latrine cleaner) yet you would probably classify that latrine cleaner a "hero" as long as he voted Tea Party even thought he was blown up by methane from improper cleaning of the latrine LOL.

"Mabus said courage has defined the Navy since it's inception, so it made sense to name the ship after someone "who has become synonymous with courage.

Giffords, a Democrat, resigned from Congress last month to focus on her recovery from a gunshot wound to the head after a gunman opened fire in January 2011 with a semiautomatic pistol on a crowd gathered outside a Tucson supermarket for a Congress-on-your-Corner event."

I don't know where to begin with this.

It may be true that a soldier who is not in a combat zone is not at high risk and doesn't usually get killed.

But then, we don't name ships after them, do we?

So why name one after Giffords? She was at a store campaigning and pressing the flesh. Like everyone in Congress does. Those weren't exactly acts that require bravery.

Reagan got shot walking out of a hotel past a group of people he was waving at. Do you think Reagan was being brave?

Reagan got a ship name after him because he was big booster of the Navy, not because he took a bullet from a random lunatic.

What did Giffords do that merits a ship named for her? Did she expand the Navy greatly or implement key changes in modernizing the fleet?

Or did she just take a bullet from a random lunatic?

I think the answer is obvious.