Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Lacey

You know Rod, I went back and looked at everything I posted in this thread about when party realignment occurred and who was involved, and this is what I said in order:

• ...the Democratic Party of the Civil War consisted of Southern Democrats, who ultimately fled to the Republican party during the civil-rights era...

• Southern Democrats switched their affiliation to the Republican party during the civil-rights period...

• Southern Democrats, except for POC, whose descendants still reside in the cotton belt, essentially switched to the Republican party during the civil-rights era...

• Suppose you look at the history of the Democratic party and the Republican party from, say, about 1872 to 1936. This period is when they started switching platforms. And people followed.

How you look at all of this and conclude that I implied that Southern Democrats en masse and instantaneously switched platforms is beyond me. Personally, I think Greg and Rich were reading a hypothesis they wanted to attack into what I wrote.

Well, I take what Greg stated, "Funny how you managed to morph the original false narrative you posted to include a span of decades in an effort to not admit your original claim was BS..... smile" to refer to your original rebuttal of Rich's initial post, including what was cited in the Daily Wingnut. Even if it isn't referring specifically to it, you've aptly demonstrated the assertions in Rich's original post to be nonsense as well as refuting their nonsensical claims that you can't name names in their ridiculous demand to do so with southern Democrats switching over to the Republicans. One has to wonder if Rich and Greg ever took a history class in school...

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I'm not dying on any hill. We all admit and know that Southern Democrats were the party of racists and bigots. I'm only challenging the narrative that the modern-day Democratic party is descended from the Southern Democrats when the historical evidence unequivocally shows that they realigned themselves with the GOP before, during, and after the civil rights era. Further, the Democratic Party of the civil war and the civil rights era was bigger than Southern Democrats. It included progressive Northern Democrats that were anti-slavery and pro-civil rights. Somehow though, you and Rich never want to talk about them. The modern-day Democratic party is the descendant of the Northern Democrats, not the Southern Democrats. Where do you think FDR, Truman, and JFK came from anyway?

You'll notice that Greg, as usual, provides no evidence for any statement he conjures up but demands that you do so then rejects it when you provide it.  Reminds me of the "Kraken" lawyers who now have been called on the carpet in court by a judge for failing to provide a modicum of evidence for their charges of election fraud. I'm going to enjoy watching them having their licenses suspended, just like Rudy...

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

LOL....yet more evidence is coming out almost weekly that there was wide spread fraud in the election.....Is that why you are still harping on how there wasnt?

Lol... What evidence?! Don't you think the lawyers who were called on the carpet last week by a judge for not having any would have presented it if it existed?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Lol... What evidence?! Don't you think the lawyers who were called on the carpet last week by a judge for not having any would have presented it if it existed?

Here's the "evidence" https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/18/politics/fact-check-maricopa-audit-arizona-cyber-ninjas-74000/index.html

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Guys:

I had a nice weekend, hope you did too.  I have not read the whole weekend portion of the thread,  but in my mind, I can cut to the chase of what I think is the key underlying issue, with two questions.  First the caveats:  (A) I am not calling anyone here a bigot.  (B)  I think genuine bigots are relatively rare, becoming increasingly rare, and I do not like the modern and politically motivated re-definition of the term "racist" at all.  That said:

(1)  In 1940, did more genuine anti-black bigots living in the South vote democrat or republican?

(2)  In 2020, did more genuine anti-black bigots living in the South vote democrat or republican?

Jim

I believe the answer would be Republican for both questions based upon the history of the '40s and the white supremacists backing Trump in 2020... 

Originally Posted by James Brown

Maybe the 40's was the wrong date to pick - not really sure.  You are not however, saying that genuine southern anti-integration racists were never predominantly D are you?  That would be really odd.

No I'm not nor did I state, "that genuine southern anti-integration racists were never predominantly D are you?". But the history of the '40s backs up my answer to your question in post #81.

Originally Posted by Steven Moore

Rod we know you are anti-hunting and you do not eat meat so you think you are better than anyone that does eat meat and you had to post about this new book that tries to make every hunter in all the World look bad with all that this person wrote !! This is my last post on this because it is no use to post anything else to what you posted! Yes I know it is supposed to be about trophy hunting but they are using this to make anybody that hunts look bad! End of story!

Well Steven, my personal experience with hunters, other than reading about hunting accidents in the news wherein one hunter slaughter's another, is rather limited since I don't go out on Safari. That said, my experience is specific to one, whom I'll call "Hoss". Coming down the mountain from my primary observing site atop Mt Pinos, I darn well take extra precautions during the limited window for hunting season up there because I know and expect dumbass hunters to park their pickups in the middle of a mountain road with no consideration for anybody but themselves while they look over the side of the mountain for deer to shoot. Sure enough, Hoss had his pickup parked right in the center of a curve of the mountain road and anybody else coming down the mountain probably would have rear-ended it. He grudgingly got back into his pickup and parked it at a turnout which he should have done in the first place. Now, the only deer I've ever seen during my many trips up to Mt Pinos is your basic Bambi model. I see more deer around my neighborhood when I go out jogging that look and act like deer rather than the few small Bambi types I've encountered atop Mt Pinos. That's probably why I see more hunters shooting trees up there than deer... 

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Steven:

I agree with you that the motivation for the book and Rod's post is probably to make all hunters look bad.  That said, if the excerpts  that Rod quoted are remotely true, the book is not describing hunters - it is describing sick and vile criminals.  "Shooting a baboon to see what it felt like to kill a stranger..."  "Shooting 13,000 birds in 5 days".  Those are sick criminal acts, not acts of hunting, which, at least in the civilized world, is an activity engaged in by decent rule-following people with many benefits to the environment.

Frankly, I seriously doubt that 4 people blew away 13,000 birds - I have no idea whether it is the alleged hunter or the author who is lying though.   

Jim

"I agree with you that the motivation for the book and Rod's post is probably to make all hunters look bad."
I don't have to do that; hunters make themselves look bad...

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

Yep....when I saw the 13k claim I stopped right there.....and decided it was just another in a long line of ridiculous things Rod tends to post that deserve no attention.

Hmm, 13000 birds in 4 days by 5 shooters. That's what's quoted from the book. Since I'm not into shooting birds like an authority on the AM who it calls a ridiculous thing that I post that deserves no attention, I'll offer up an alternative, hypothetical situation. Let's say for the sake of argument, that it was 1300 birds shot down by 5 shooters in four days. Or even 300. Does the actions of the hunter for sport justify the carnage?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Hmm, 13000 birds in 4 days by 5 shooters. That's what's quoted from the book. Since I'm not into shooting birds like an authority on the AM who it calls a ridiculous thing that I post that deserves no attention, I'll offer up an alternative, hypothetical situation. Let's say for the sake of argument, that it was 1300 birds shot down by 5 shooters in four days. Or even 300. Does the actions of the hunter for sport justify the carnage?

I guess it's real after all. Here's the gun club touting records:
"Sierra Brava‘s exclusive Dove Hunting CLUB includes members on the 7000, 9000, 10,000, 12,000 and 14,000 categories respectively. (birds in 1 day). 

https://sierrabrava.com/dove-shooting-world-record-toby-thomas