No More Identity Politics
POSTED BY: THG
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 05:47
VIEWED: 6691
PAGE 3 of 15
T 
Coffee With Texas Paul! Kilmar Abrego Garcia Confirmed Alive!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
T
Coffee With Texas Paul! Kilmar Abrego Garcia Confirmed Alive!
Glad to hear that your wife-beating, ganglord illegal alien invader is still alive.
For now.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yup, as he says. You can have a party that is ideologically pure or you can win elections. A hundred years or so ago women did not have the right to vote. There was no bill of rights and schools were segregated. The center left changed all that but it took time. All one need do is look at all the changes to see the center left is winning and always has been. Drop the purity crap and let's win elections.
Hell, look at the post above. Jack is pissed because the left is beating Trump, and the guy he hates only because of Trump, is about to come home. Hey Jack, laughing here. And Jack, if the democrats win the house in 2026, as is likely, they have to approve sending money to El Salvador to keep the people we've sent there. How likely is that? Or is it more likely if they are not back already, they'll be coming back then as well?
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Hell, look at the post above. Jack is pissed because the left is beating Trump
I'm not pissed because the Left is doing no such thing.
Your party is dead and irrelevant. They've got at least another 4 years of destroying each other before they even figure out what the hell they even stand for anymore and what they're going to do going forward.
The DNC? They're 1,000% on board with continuing the DEI and all the Identity Politics.
They're going to have to fight Nancy Pelosi, who I have little doubt is going to start swinging far to the right if she wants to have a chance at taking her party back from the lefty lunatics that destroyed the Democratic party from within.
Good luck. You'll need it.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The ignorance is so overwhelming that it eventually becomes astounding. This is why Libtard Democrats think the Sun orbits Earth, every 24 hours (unless they legislate differently)
Quote:Until the sensible freedom-loving right Republicans granted it, despite the Democrat left endlessly fighting to keep women subjugated - Wilson even threw Sufferrage protesters in prison.
Originally posted by THG:
Yup, as he says. You can have a party that is ideologically pure or you can win elections. A hundred years or so ago women did not have the right to vote.
Quote:Until sensible freedom-loving right Republicans finally got enough Senate seats to pass it, despite the neverending opposition from Left Democrats, and forcing LBJ into a corner.
There was no bill of rights
Quote:Until sensible freedom-loving right Republicans ended Segregation, despite the endless fighting against by left Democrats.
and schools were segregated.
Quote:"center left" only exists in Libtard Democrat/Socialist Talking Points, and in Fake News. The American Center is the political "right" - and yes, it was this Republican Right which fought for and
The center left
Quote:
changed all that but it took time. All one need do is look at all the changes to see the centerleftright is winning and always has been. Drop the purity crap and let's win elections.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^ Post of the month, certainly. If not post of 2025 so far.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, there is an error in that exchange.
The phrase "bill of rights" was used, and I also quoted that language in my reply.
I had misread that phrase to say "Civil Rights" and I had also inferred that was what the original statement had intended.
Obviously, The Bill of Rights was the first 10 Amendments to The Constitution, enacted more that 200 years ago, so that is not what was referenced as "a hundred years ago or so."
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Republicans overrode the Democrat President's Veto) was also more than 150 years ago.
The Civil Rights Acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, 1968, or 1991 are not what I had in mind, but may have been intended in the original post.
I was thinking of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Remember, the Congress of 1964 had been elected in 1962 - when racist Liberal Democrat LBJ had not been President.
In the final Senate passage of The Civil Rights Act, 27 of the 33 Republican Senators voted in favor, as they always had for years, but they were able to also swing 46 of the 67 Democrat Senators over to their side, to invoke cloture, to end the record-long filibuster, and pass the bill.
Yes, the Majority Party, The racist left Democrats, were filibustering the Civil Rights Act (as they always had), for Record duration. The Minority Republicans had to swing over most of the Majority Democrats to end the Democrat's filibuster.
Some Republicans wanted a different version of Title II in the bill.
In The House, 138 of the 172 Republicans (80%) voted for it, while 152 of the 248 Left Democrats (61%) voted for it.
Some of the prior attempts by right Republicans to enact Civil Rights legislation, all of which were defeated by the racist left Democrats controlling The Senate:
1957: Senate Bill 83,
S. 1658,
1958: S. 3257,
1959: S.955,
S. 956,
S. 957,
S. 958,
S. 959,
S. 960,
1960: S. 3001,
S. 3823,
S. 3829,
1962: S. 2750,
S. 2979,
S. 2980,
S. 2981,
S. 2982,
S. 2983,
S. 2984.
They were never able to get enough liberal Democrats to sensibly vote for Civil Rights. Even in 1958, with a 49D 47R Senate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks to JSF'S rigorous reading of history, I learned that REPUBLICANS did more to advance civil rights than Democrats.
THGR, you derailed your own post - a post that just about everybody here agrees on (IDK about SECOND) - to engage in identity politics and to collectively attack a group people.
You should be aware that Dems, more than Republicans, advocate identity politics with their trans/ LGBTQXYZ 59 genders/ BLM policies.
This has led to nonsensical workplace policies. For example, in CA, people are "protected" from workplace harassment on the basis of sex, race, religion, sexual preference, gender, age, disability, ethnicity etc. The only category NOT officially protected? Able-bodied white Christian males age appx 20-55.
How about just requiring people to ACT CIVILLY TO EVERYONE?
And then you've got the whole "safe spaces/ snowflake" issue, where ppl melt in the face of "micro aggression" and everybody is supposed to walk around on tip toes for fear of setting off some emotional catastrophe.
Yanno, I had the privilege (if you can call it that) of watching a sexual harassment investigation and hearing unfold, and reading the finding. I was shocked that the accused, Mr X, wasn't allowed to question his accusers, or even know who they were, or to speak in his defense. In the report, all of the exculpatory evidence was missing.
Now, I happen to know who the accusers were: a few Asian women got together and cooked up the initial and supporting allegations. The initial allegation was that Mr X rubbed someone in a manner that scared her.
I know that that was bullshit bc the "victim" wasn't his type: she was old, Asian, and not particularly attractive. Mr X had a type: young, tall, athletic, and blond. None of the other Asian women that he supposedly harrassed were hus type either.
Not only was the investigation and hearing a farce, it wasn't just a peculiarity of our workplace, THAT WAS THE WAY TITLE IX HEARINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.
And it's not like this was inconsequential either. It led to a 2-week suspension, workplace ostracism, and eventually a messy divorce. Mr X wound up retiring early and moving to Panama.
So, how about we just commit to treating everyone equally, and civilly, and with equal justice?
No more identity politics. Let's agree on that and move on.
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And we need to eliminate the concept of the "Hate Crime" completely from the lexicon as well.
A crime is a crime is a crime.
All a "Hate Crime" is, is an additional punishment that gets doled out on top of anything else, but only if you're a white male between the ages of 18 and 55. It's just been another tool in the Establishment arsenal for decades.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Totally agree. Assault is assault. Battery is battery. The only category I would carve out is crimes against children.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
And we need to eliminate the concept of the "Hate Crime" completely from the lexicon as well.
A crime is a crime is a crime.
All a "Hate Crime" is, is an additional punishment that gets doled out on top of anything else, but only if you're a white male between the ages of 18 and 55. It's just been another tool in the Establishment arsenal for decades.
--------------------------------------------------
"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon
-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger
AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME