Republican Representative Ted Poe decided to demonstrate to us why his party is at the forefront of diversity and racial sensitivity by positively quoting Klan founder Nathan Bedford Forrest on the floor of the House.
I cannot imagine for the life of me why more blacks don’t vote Republican. I can’t imagine at all.
The relationship between General Forrest’s pithy and appropriate aphorism regarding logistics and strategy; and his racist proclivities is:
Great point fd10801, I recall similar lefties ignoring certain controversial European leaders’ ability to adhere to a train schedule.
And why, fd10801, do you suppose blacks tend not to vote the correct and smart way? I am eager to hear some of your theories. Please enlighten us.
Well, fd, can one reasonably discuss Hitler’s impact on modern warfare without also considering the means he used to gain & maintain power? I hate to invoke the Mighty Godwin, but I believe in this case the comparison is entirely appropriate to the discussion…
Getting there “fustest with the mostest” guided us to victory in several wars after the Civil War (World War II [the Left's "favorite"]), without any reference to General Forrest’s being the founder of the KKK. I don’t think it is relevant now, nor was it ever relevant to that simple philosophy of warfare.
As to why blacks don’t vote conservative, I don’t believe that is the topic here. Even if it were, it is too long a story for me to tell.
The short version: I believe they should, but they don’t.
As to why blacks don’t vote conservative, I don’t believe that is the topic here. Even if it were, it is too long a story for me to tell.
The short version: I believe they should, but they don’t.
I have plenty of time. Given how much time you spend commenting her, so do you. I kind of figured you believe blacks should vote for Republican. I’m asking why you think that they don’t. Please share more of your wisdom. Everyone will be better off for it, right? Thanks in advance.
The irony of quoting a “successful” General from the losing side of a war is not lost.
“Even if it were, it is too long a story for me to tell.”
no it’s not. here, let me tell it: Herbert Hoover.
Getting there “fustest with the mostest” guided us to victory in several wars after the Civil War (World War II [the Left's "favorite"]), without any reference to General Forrest’s being the founder of the KKK.
And it was also a successful military principle for thousands of years _before_ Forrest channeled the future Foghorn Leghorn to put it in those words. Poe could have quoted equivalent military wisdom from countless other sources; Sun Tzu, Clauswicz, even Napoleon (except that he’s French!). But instead, he chose to quote a Confederate general who helped found the KKK. And yet you seem surprised that this raises the hackles of blacks.
Hmmm. I can remember Sen Byrd being spoken of favorably here.
Some sauce on that gander, sir?
Wow, that took longer than I thought, Dugs.
LOL, Duros
Maybe Dugger can share his opinion too. Why do you think that blacks don’t vote Republican, Dugger? Enlighten us, please.
I don’t know Duder why blacks tend to vote en bloc Democratic. Different reasons, habit, leadership, assumed self interest, many more. But considering that 90% of blacks vote Dem and blacks make up around 14% or so of the population, how do you explain the fact remainder of the country (various genders, races, religions, etc.) winds up being on the side of the Republicans?
And what about my point that if it wrong, per se, to quote an ex klansman, why is Sen Byrd idolized on the left. Or Hugo Black for that matter. Have a serious answer for that?
Hey, whoa there Dugger. I wasn’t asking for some half-assed, disingenuous attempt to change the subject. I am merely asking: why is it that blacks vote so overwhelmingly against Republicans. Can you please be more specific? Take your time. Explain your answer slowly. I know you can do it. I have faith in you. Thanks in advance, again.
Byrd is “idolized”? That’s a hell of a characterization. When Dems invoke Byrd’s name as much as Republicans bring up Reagan, then we can discuss “idolized.”
But you have a point about Forrest, regardless of that. The man repented, same as Byrd, even if it was too late for him to bottle the genie he’d released in the first place. As such, if I continue to forgive Byrd I must show some of the same for Forrest. I’m not jumping in this conversation further.
Dude, no one idolizes Sen. Byrd. Seriously.
Forrest did, indeed, help develop a new form of warfare, the use of cavalry to wage “highly mobile warfare.” And the precise quote was “to git thar fust with the most men.” The “git thar fustest with the mostest” was the creation of a writer half a century after the war. Regardless, Forrest summed it up in a singularly memorable phrase, more memorable than any others’ offerings.
In fact, Forrest’s cavalry tactics could be considered the precursor of the Nazi’s “Blitzkrieg” strategy, a doctrine that was adapted and used quite successfully by the US in Iraq — twice.
Yes, Forrest helped start the Klan. Two years after he was named its first head, he ordered its disbanding and spent the rest of his life distancing him from it.
Finally, I didn’t know much about Forrest except that modern military officers — especially cavalry — admire his innovations and accomplishments in war. The rest I just looked up because this discussion stirred my interest slightly. I’m more of a WWII than a Civil War student.
Finally, the Robert Byrd comparison seems exceptionally appropriate. Both men were Klan leaders who later repented of their deeds, but it seems Forrest put a lot more energy into it than Byrd, who just wants to declare it over and a closed topic.
Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia entry on Forrest:
J.
Awwwww….
Well, fd, can one reasonably discuss Hitler’s impact on modern warfare without also considering the means he used to gain & maintain power?
Ever hear of the blitzkrieg? It’s such a common term that it has made its way into our language on two levels: sports and warfare.
Would you care to try again?
Wrong again, Frank. See Jay Tea above.
Duros62: Now who’s being “Opposite Man”?
The idea of the blitzkreig could have been borrowed from anybody, but that wasn’t my point. (Of course, you weren’t trying to understand me, you are just being a ball buster).
The point was that the word is now a solid part of our language, and it is not, nor was it ever, associated with the “the means he used to gain & maintain power” (except, obviously, in its original military use).
I guess I’ll be hearing soon that “I need help”, eh?
Forrest may be a bad man, but he is considered by almost everybody one of the most effective generals in U.S. history. I wonder who Oliver Willis thinks we should turn to for military wisdom, Maya Angelou? Good thing Newton wasn’t a racist (maybe he was?) or we couldn’t mention his physical laws, since it would be racist to quote his law of gravity.
To quote Rommel on the effectiveness of tank warfare is not to be a Nazi. To use musical techniques pionered by Wagner is not to be an anti-Semite. To quote a top general on his understanding of warfare fundamentals is not to be a racist, even if the general himself was.
You know why blacks don’t vote for Republicans?
Because they believe that the Democratic Party (despite the fact that it’s full of rich white guys) will protect them from the nasty Republicans.
Who tells them that? The left – leaning press, the leftist “black leadership”, and,of course, Democrats.
Ever been in a “Social Services” Office?
Ever see any real job finding going on in there?
How about getting people into school?
Anybody teaching women how to take care of children?
Ever see anybody who receives Food Stamps getting information about shopping or nutrition?
Ever see anybody on Medicaid learn anything about First Aid or preventive medicine?
Yet, every application has a Voters’ Registration form on the back of it. Coincidence?
I’ll bet every one of those “Social Services” workers votes Democratic. I wonder why.
The Democratic Party has set up a public assistance system that is almost impossible to leave. Imagine that if you wanted to change your living circumstances to any significant degree, you would need to increase your income and / or assets by nearly 100%
Think you could do it?
Why do you think it’s viewed as nearly miraculous when you read the story of someone going from “welfare to a law degree” or whatever? Because it is practically a miracle.
Every time the Republicans try to introduce ways to get people off welfare, the Democrats make them out to be villains.
So where is “Black America” now?
The Democrats are killing them. They are rotting in jails, they are shooting each other in the streets, they are having babies they can’t care for, they are aborting babies when they are afraid.
And ending this is somehow inhumane?
The Republicans want to turn the clock back?
Back to when young black men were not rotting in jails, not shooting each other in the streets, not having babies they can’t care for, not aborting babies when they are afraid.
Wouldn’t that be awful…
Because they believe that the Democratic Party (despite the fact that it’s full of rich white guys) will protect them from the nasty Republicans.
Is this a fact? Have you performed some sort of extensive, statistically meaningful survey?
So you’re saying that blacks are, overwhelmingly, easily duped. (How wonderful that you are to try to save them.)
Or perhaps OWill’s assumption is correct.
Hmm. Whom to support…
(And by the way, why the dig at Rich White Men? Some of my best Republican acquaintances are rich whie men. And man do they know some awesome jokes.)
“Getting there “fustest with the mostest” guided us to victory in several wars”
Why couldn’t Ted Poe just quote some non-racist person on that subject?
Or am I thinking too far outside the box on this one?
So you’re saying that blacks are, overwhelmingly, easily duped.
Isn’t that what you say about white Christians? Isn’t that what you say about all people that vote Republican? That they are “easily duped”?
Here’s what is true: The people who vote for whoever they vote for are not “easily duped”. You see, whether you realize it or not, you are saying that the idea that Group X votes Democratic (Group X being, say, most of the residents of the Upper East Side of NYC [below E. 110th St]) vote for Democrats, because they are persuaded that it is the right thing to do; but I must believe that the people on the Upper East Side of NYC [above E. 100th St] vote Democratic because they are “easily duped”.
In other words, you think that I believe what you believe: That any voter who was properly educated, would vote like you. And all that separates liberals from conservatives is that liberals know what they’re doing, and conservatives don’t.
It is actually you who is suggesting that what I am saying about Democrats might be true, and “Black America” is tricked into voting for Democrats year after year.
(Of course, even if I did believe that, it would never explain how people like Cornell West or Clarence Paige, or Lawrence Tribe presumably vote Democratic. Are you suggesting that I think Gil Noble or Juan Williams are “easily duped”?)
People don’t vote based solely on what they know or don’t know. Contrary to your own anecdotal evidence, you might find that if people voted based solely on what they know, they might never vote for Democrats.
Perhaps the “facts” might indicate that Republicans handle many things well, or maybe things go well when Republicans are in office, but is that what happens?
Have you ever seen this discussion before: Are the Democrats actually lousy at National Defense?
Did you ever see a conclusive answer? Of course not…
So, let’s say that the “Democrats are good at helping minorities, but the Republicans suck at it”.
Now, what’s your evidence?
Some legislation they passed?
Now, let’s say “Republicans are good at helping minorities, but the Democrats suck at it”.
Now, what’s my evidence?
a) The disastrous conditions under which many blacks live (as described above), despite Democratic efforts to “help” which, as I suggest, are not helpful; AND,
b) the FACT that economic conditions for blacks have improved due to Republicans’ economic measures (SBA stuff, tax stuff, etc.)
But, given those “facts”, Black America votes Democratic. Seems to me that if anybody is duping anybody, it is the Democrats. Considering that the Republicans have been slowly chipping away at the Democrats’ Afro American base, they are not all that “easily duped”, are they?
And finally, there are tons of books and articles on the best kept secret in America — that Democrats are harmful to Black America. You’ve just never heard about it — or of it. After all, who would tell you?
Why couldn’t Ted Poe just quote some non-racist person on that subject?
The saying has been famously attributed to Gen. Forrest. I heard it used years ago, with reference to Vietnam, as advice that should have been, but was not taken. In fact, when I read that he had quoted the founder of the KKK, I knew who was quoted, and what the quote was.
I defy anyone on this blog to come up with an equivalent saying that conveys the appropriate meaning, without scavenging ten quotation websites, or a handful of “Dictionaries of Quotations” such as I have laying around all over my place.
Snippet of an imagined conversation.
Liberal: The Bush Administration proves the truth of what Hitler said, “that people will more easily believe a big lie than a small one.”
Conservative: Hah, I always knew you liberals love Hitler and now you have proved it. Why would you quote Hitler unless you approve of all the bad things he did?
Liberal: Um, because it was the most appropriate quote for the subject.
Conservative: But if you were really a good person, you would have quoted Oprah.
Liberal: But her quotes don’t make the point I wanted to make.
Conservative: What inside the box thinking. Just what I would expect from a Hitler lover.
With so many real criticisms to make of the current Republican party, why Oliver (and some of the other commentators here) are going out of their way to make a criticism of a Republican that is so silly that it discredits them rather than the Repubs is beyond me. Unless, that is, you actually think the conservative in the above argument won.
Me: “Why couldn’t Ted Poe just quote some non-racist person on that subject?”
The Moron: “I defy anyone on this blog to come up with an equivalent saying that conveys the appropriate meaning, without scavenging ten quotation websites, or a handful of “Dictionaries of Quotations” such as I have laying around all over my place.”
“Fustest with the mostest” is not what I would call a unique sentiment. I’m sure it can’t be that difficult to find a dozen similar quotes out there. Perhaps even some in real English.
“Snippet of an imagined conversation.”
Counterfactual: Uhh, in your conversation the Liberal is equating Bush with Hitler, so when the Conservative says, “I always knew you liberals love Hitler…”, he is being as stupid as Frank.
“With so many real criticisms to make of the current Republican party”
It’s called dog whistle politics, which is something the Republican party is great at doing.
CSS (a.k.a. “The Dick”): If the saying is so easy to find that there should be a dozen similar quotes, why haven’t you found one in four hours?
I see you’re back to calling me “The Moron”. Am I starting to perturb you, Sparky? Feeling less than omnipotent, are we?
Too fucking bad, Roscoe!
This took me about 20 minutes:the right stuff, at the right place, at the right time, and at the right cost
Morley Winograd, Dir, Nat’l Partnership for Reinventing Government
NOV 16 1998
I guess a moron can do what a dick couldn’t…
fd, that’s 16 words vs. 6. It relies on repetition vs. vernacular, uses “right time” instead of “fustest,” and introduces elements absent from the original — the element of cost. I’d have to say that your quote is OK, but is not an adequate replacement for the original.
J.
the right stuff, at the right place, at the right time makes 11 words.
And I don’t believe there is a substitute that is as good as the original.
I took CSS’s challenge to have two components: 1) The sentiment was not unique. Taking away “the cost” reproduces the sentiment
2) The saying is “similar to”, even though it is not “as good as” the original.
But, as I said, the saying was well known, and Oliver’s objection being a silly one that no one on Rep’s staff would have even anticipated, it’s hardly worth calling it a controversy.
Imagine this conversation:
Rep. Pope: Should I throw in that saying by that southerh General, about being “fustest with the mostest”?
Staff member: Wasn’t that General Forrest?
2nd Staff member: Wasn’t he the founder of the KKK?
Rep Poe: He was?
1st Staff Member: Yes, Sir.
Rep Poe: So what does that have to do with anything?
Staff member: I don’t know. I was just saying.
Rep. Poe: Oh. OK
Duder, I did explain it. Unless you want to interview every black Democrat in the country, thats gonna be it.
Again Hugo Black, Harry Byrd.
“If the saying is so easy to find that there should be a dozen similar quotes, why haven’t you found one in four hours?”
Cause I’m not writing a political speech and therefor don’t care.
… That and I’m not entirely sure what half the words mean. They are not in any dictionary I’ve seen.
(That was partially a joke. I know what it means, but it still sounds like an uneducated moron.)
“Rep. Pope: Should I throw in that saying by that southerh General, about being “fustest with the mostest”?
Staff member: Wasn’t that General Forrest?
2nd Staff member: Wasn’t he the founder of the KKK?
Rep Poe: He was?
1st Staff Member: Yes, Sir.
Rep Poe: So what does that have to do with anything?”
First Staff member: He’s a controversial figure and quoting him in this way might sound like an endorsement of his racist views. I bet we can find another quote that fits your speech that doesn’t involve the KKK.
Second Staff Member: Perhaps something from Patton.
First Staff Member: “Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.” It is the generals job to lead, the troops job to follow, and until we fund the troops, we are just getting in the way.
Rep Poe: Well, it doesn’t exactly say the same thing, but I like it.
“I see you’re back to calling me “The Moron”.”
Yes.
“Am I starting to perturb you, Sparky?”
No.
“Feeling less than omnipotent, are we?”
Never claimed I was.
“Too fucking bad, Roscoe!”
You might want to consult your psychiatrist with regards to adjusting your medication.
C.S – As J points out, being a similiar quote does not mean being as good. The Winograd quote you cite is longer and more formal. In some circumstances it would be the better quote. But if you want the shortest, simplist way of saying it is an informal manner, the Forrest quote is the better one. To ask why use it is to ask why isn’t it just as good to express your ideas less well with more words. I don’t really have to answer that for you, do I?
As far as saying my imaginary discussion is invalid because Bush and Hitler are being equated instead of contrasted, try this.
Conservative: Bush should attack Iran. We will win quickly and easily and all our problems will be solved.
Liberal: How can you be sure we will win easily? Anything could happen. Hitler said that “starting a war is like entering a dark room with no idea of what is lurking there”. If we go into Iran, we might find all sorts of bad things lurking for us there.
Conservative: Ah, so you are a Hitler lover and must approve of everything Hitler did since you just quoted him, etc. etc.
Now Bush and Hitler are contrasted for you. BTW while I have heard that quote attributed to Hitler multiple times, I have never been able to verify it, so he might not have actually said it. If so, it is the perfect fit for this discussion, since Forrest never actually said “fustest with the mostest” either.
CJ – I hadn’t seen your immediately previous post when I posted my last. After reading it, 2 comments.
1) First, you make my (and others) point when you write:
“Rep Poe: Well, it doesn’t exactly say the same thing, but I like it.” Poe may like it, but it does not say what he means to communicate, while the other quote does. Maybe to you the point of communication is to say what we “like”, but to some of us it is to most clearly express our thoughts.
2) Whoa, Patton is a controversial figure, you know. Not only did he slap a soldier, he wanted a preventive war with Russia in 1945! From the fact you are quoting him approvingly, I guess I can figure you favor physically abusing American soldiers and rearming the Nazis and going to war with Russia in 1945. Or maybe, just maybe, you are approvingly quoting the sentiments of that well put, accurate military saying of his without necessarily approving of his wacko political beliefs. If so, you might extend the same understanding to others (as might Oliver Willis).
that people will more easily believe a big lie than a small one
I found this:
“The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 (1925)
But also references to Goebbels. So that’s that.
This thread is the vraziest thread I’ve ever seen, and no one can blame me for derailing it. It was Duder and SpiderJ.
CSS, of course, continues to be a Dick.
Counterfactual
[Yet another imaginary conversation later...]
“Now Bush and Hitler are contrasted for you.”
Again, why quote Hitler? Patton said something very similar. There are a lot of people who have made statements about the unpredictability of war. And if you can’t find a quote that fits you sentiments exactly, then don’t quote anyone. Just because someone famous said it one time doesn’t make it true.
Oh, and if you think Patton is as controversial as a grand wizard of the KKK, then you has serious mental issues.
“This thread is the vraziest thread I’ve ever seen,”
You were arguing about boxer or briefs just a few days ago.
“CSS, of course, continues to be a Dick.”
You should put that on a macro, it will save you a lot of time.
CSS: I wasn’t arguing about boxers and briefs at all. Your memory is failing you, I suppose.
As for that Macro business, I’m not real good at that. Tell me how you made the one for “The Moron”, and I’ll change the text.
Me? The hell did I do?
I’ve posted once on this thread and that was to (a) question the use of the hyperbole “idolized” re: Sen Byrd, (b) note that I owe Forrest as much forgiveness as I give Byrd due to both of their repentances, and (c) state that I was staying out of this conversation because of that knowledge.
There’s only 40 posts on this thread. Look it over before you start tossing my handle into your whiny little accusations.
fd10801 | May 9, 2007 10:54:43 AM
“CSS: I wasn’t arguing about boxers and briefs at all. Your memory is failing you, I suppose.”
Frank’s overwhelmed what with posting here, juggling urnotalone.com and his DJing. He confuses easily.
That, and he’s a bald faced fucking liar when it suits his purposes.
fd10801 | May 2, 2007 11:35:24 PM
“Hey, squirrel, the fact that this is amusing to guys who thought that a grown – assed man with teen – aged hormones (he even wore briefs, for cripes’ sakes!) was the greatest President in history — now that’s thoroughly entertaining…”
Nimrod Gently | May 3, 2007 7:38:51 PM
“I think I realise what you meant now anyway. We just call ‘em pants in this country but you call ‘em Boxers and Briefs. So real men wear boxers and sissy ponces wear regliar underpants. I get it.”
fd10801 | May 3, 2007 9:00:26 PM
“Close, NG… Children wear briefs, then when young men get older, around college age, they start wearing boxers.”
C.S.Strowbridge | May 6, 2007 10:22:56 PM
“I can’t believe he’s arguing about boxers or briefs. Clearly this is some how my fault for taunting him.”
Oh, I get it…
I wasn’t arguing about boxers and briefs, but if you say I was arguing about boxers and briefs, then I was arguing about boxers and briefs.
squirrel, you are without a doubt the dumbest shit in the bowl.
Are you keeping a file on me, now that “s” is off to pre – K?
And you forgot the LOL.
Why mention urnotalone, squirrel? Is there something about a person’s sexual preference that requires you to mention it? Would you hasten to mention my sexual preference if I were gay?
Maybe you’d like to call me a faggot, eh, squirrel?
And is it my fault that you have neither the knowledge, the creativity, the technical expertise, nor the personality to be a DJ?
You’re just an anencephalic inbred dickwad.
SpiderJ: Big deal! It happens to me all the time. You know what never happens — an apology. I’m sorry I confused you with Duder.
Actually, you didn’t confuse me with Duder. You said it was Duder and me. Aren’t you even reading your own posts anymore?
Obviously you aren’t. The only way I could think you AND Duder posted would be if I confused you with Duder.
I feel like you guys are playing “Gaslight” or something.
This thread is the vraziest thread I’ve ever seen, and no one can blame me for derailing it. It was Duder and SpiderJ.
“And” is an inclusive conjunction. You said Duder AND I derailed the conversation. Come on, man, this is a basic English slip-up on your part. Give an inch.
What are you talking about? I thought one of Duder’s posts was yours. So, Duder posts two times, but I think he posts once, and you post once.
Because, in one instance, I confused him with you, I thought that each of you derailed the thread.
What’s the problem here?
Exactly. All y’all move along. Nothing to see here.
Thanks, Duros62, that made me spew tea on my keyboard! LoL!
“I wasn’t arguing about boxers and briefs”
Yes you were. You two were arguing whether or not it was more mature for men to wear boxers of briefs. We can see what you wrote, we can read English, there is no debate here.
CSS: Apparently you can’t read English, you asshole!
Nimrod misunderstood me. I explained it, Show me an argument, you primping scumbag!
The only argument going on here is whether you are a simple minded buffoon (one possibility) or an escaped psychopath who has commandeered a cybercafe (possibility number two) {that’s the one I favor}.
“Apparently you can’t read English, you asshole!
Nimrod misunderstood me. I explained it, Show me an argument, you primping scumbag!”
Okay, fine, your argument was over the definition of briefs and boxers, but you were still putting for an argument that boxers are more manly that briefs.
There are three definitions of argument that relate to this discussion:
1.) a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true
2.) a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
3.) a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement
Technically speaking #2 requites #1, at least two in fact cause you need a claim and a counter claim.
#3 is the definition that causes problems because it has a negative connotation. (I used to get into this debate with Adam Baldwin all of the time. Pain in the ass.)
That whole comment is called “moving the goalposts”.
Until 1:00 AM, there was a suggestion that I was arguing with, or disagreeing with, someone.
Then, at 3:21 AM, faced with the horrifying prospect that you are wr-, wr-, wr-, you decided that my assertion was an argument, despite the fact that no one disagreed with me.
Vizzini has drunk the poison and fallen over.
“Until 1:00 AM, there was a suggestion that I was arguing with, or disagreeing with, someone.”
You were having a disagreement with someone and the topic of boxer or briefs came up. I may have gotten the details wrong, but quite frankly, when the subject turned to underwear, I tuned it out.
“you decided that my assertion was an argument, despite the fact that no one disagreed with me.”
Technically, everytime you make a claim with evidence, you are making an argument, (as per definition #1 above.)
I may have gotten the details wrong
Yes, you did. And you still have them wrong.
Quit while you are only wrong.
Me: “I may have gotten the details wrong”
The Underwear Gnome: “Yes, you did. And you still have them wrong.”
I don’t think I have them wrong now. However, the details about a conversation you had about presidential underwear matter very little to me. The fact remains that’s far more off topic than trying to come up with a suitable quote Ted Poe could have used instead of quoting a grand wizard of the KKK. In fact, that would be significantly on topic.
Actually, CSS, you took that task on yourself, when you said you thought there might be a dozen possible substitutes.
It seems that way, I suppose, but you haven’t come up with one yet.
Too busy arguing about underpants.
You mean, “Too busy arguing about whether or not we were arguing about underpants”.
“Actually, CSS, you took that task on yourself, when you said you thought there might be a dozen possible substitutes.”
What the hell are you talking about? This is a non sequitor to my last post.
“It seems that way, I suppose, but you haven’t come up with one yet.”
Yes I have. The Patton quote. It doesn’t say the same thing, but it works just as well given the context of the speech.
I can’t find the Patton quote in all that excess verbiage, but, if, as you say, it doesn’t say the same thing, what’s the point?
The point of Oliver’s comment, as far as I am concerned, is that the use of that aphorism is evidence that the Republican Party is racist.
Since I don’t believe it is evidence of any such thing, and no one has introduced one scintilla of evidence to the effect that it is, the subject is, as far as I am concerned, closed.
“The point of Oliver’s comment, as far as I am concerned, is that the use of that aphorism is evidence that the Republican Party is racist.”
No, but quoting a grand wizard of the KKK gives the appearance of racism, which would turn away blacks from the party.
“Since I don’t believe it is evidence of any such thing”
That’s right, we don’t have any proof that your Strawman is correct, but we don’t have to provide evidence for that.
Obviously, you couldn’t be bothered to do 10 seconds of research:
Forrest is often erroneously quoted as saying his strategy was to “git thar fustest with the mostest,” but this quote first appeared in print in a New York Times story in 1917, written to provide colorful comments in reaction to European interest in Civil War generals. Bruce Catton writes, “Do not, under any circumstances whatever, quote Forrest as saying ‘fustest’ and ‘mostest.’ He did not say it that way, and nobody who knows anything about him imagines that he did.”
Catton, pp. 160 – 161
Catton, Bruce (1971). The Civil War. American Heritage Press, New York. Library of Congress Number: 77-119671.
Try again, Goebbels.
Fix italics
“Obviously, you couldn’t be bothered to do 10 seconds of research:”
So it wasn’t even an accurate quote from a garnd wizard of the KKK. So Peo envoked the name of a grand wizard of the KKK without any reason whatsoever.
Wow. That makes this thread even more pathetic.
Sometimes great quotes get assigned to people who OUGHT to have said them. Willie Hutton, the legendary bank robber, never answered “because that’s where the money is” when asked why he robbed banks, but he spent most of his life denying it anyway. Forrest may not have said it, but it’s a summation of his original statement and, for better or worse, it’s associated with him — much like his advice to “Get ‘em skeered and keep the skeer on ‘em” has been reduced to “keep up the skeer.”
For those not familiar with the jargon, “skeer” is Southern for “scare.”
J.
Sir,
if i am reading this right, apparently Rep. Ted Poe has a tendency to be racist along the lines of Hitler. Hitler’s objectives were accomplished by destroying the family by taking children from the home and turning them into soldiers of the state. Poe is apparently doing something similar with his attack on fathers by calling them abusive, kidnappers and killers of their own family. he has apparently done this by quoting misleading statistics that supposedly prove that fathers make threats against their families during court ordered supervision. what about all the women that kill their children and abuse them? women abuse just as often as men, but no one introduces resolutions like Poe has done to go after fathers while making women look like innocent bystanders. the domestic violence against women’s act seems to be the main tool of feminists and people like Poe who want to destroy america by socially castrating fathers without cause.