Monday, April 20, 2009

Torture Mr. President? By Rev. Wayne Perryman

I received this email this morning so h/t to Robert of it's an open letter to President Obama written by Rev. Wayne Perryman author of Unfounded Loyalty.

Torture? I’m so glad you brought up the subject. Mr. President and Attorney General Holder, Conservative African Americans have been waiting a lifetime to have this conversation. But before you and the sensitive members of the Democratic Party start with the Bush Administration, why don’t we review the torture tactic of the Democratic Party.

The chronicles of history reveal that in areas controlled by Democrats, Democrats used every form of torture to keep blacks in their place. Lynching, whippings, murder, intimidation, assassinations and mutilations were commonplace in jurisdictions where Democrats were in control. In addition to individual torture entire black communities were destroyed and burned to the ground in such places like: Wilmington, North Carolina, Rosewood, Florida, and the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to name a few. The one thing that all of these communities had in common, is what realtors often say: location, location, location. They were all located in states and counties controlled by Democratic officials. According to the renowned African American history professor, John Hope Franklin, the atrocities committed against African Americans in these regions, “were so varied and so numerous as to defy classification or enumeration.”

The Encyclopaedia Britannica reported that from the beginning, “Democrat resentment [of black freedom and equality under Reconstruction] led to the formation of the secret terroristic organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knight of the White Camelia. The use of fraud, violence and intimidation helped Southerns... regain control of their state governments, by the time the last federal troops had been withdrawn in 1877, the Democratic Party was back in power.”

Other noted history professors also wrote about these atrocities, including:

a. Professor James McPherson of Princeton University
b. Professor David Herbert Donald of Harvard University
c. Professor Allen W. Trelease of North Carolina University
d. Professor Howard O. Lindsey of DePaul University.

Professor Allen Trelease said: “Klansmen in disguise rode through Negro neighborhoods at night warning Negroes either to cast Democratic ballots or stay away from the poll. The Klan also sent notices to Republican office holders, warning them of death and telling them to either resign or leave the vicinity. Similar notices went to active Republicans of both races and often to the teachers of Negro schools as well. Klan activities created a reign of terror in many localities and sometimes had the desired effect of demoralizing Negroes and Republicans…. Republicans of both races were threatened, beaten, shot, and murdered with impunity. In some areas Negroes stopped voting or voted the Democrat ticket as the Klan demanded. “Democrats by a kind of tortured reasoning, sometimes accused Negroes and Republicans of attacking each other so that the crimes would be blamed on the Democrats; investigations revealed that Democrats had committed the acts themselves.”

Professors John Hope Franklin and Alfred Moss, authors of From Slavery To Freedom tells us that, “The Camelias and the Klan were the most powerful of the secret orders. Armed with guns, swords, or other weapons, their members patrolled some parts of the South day and night. They used intimidation, force, ostracism in business and society, bribery at the polls, arson, and even murder to accomplish their deed. Depriving the Negro of political equality became, to them, a holy crusade in which a noble end justified any means. Negroes were run out of communities if they disobeyed orders to desist from voting; and the more resolute and therefore insubordinate blacks were whipped, maimed, and hanged. In 1871 several Negro officials in South Carolina were given fifteen days to resign and they were warned that if they failed to do so, then retributive justice will as surely be used as night follows day. For many white Southerners violence was still the surest means of keeping the Negroes politically impotent, and in countless communities they were not allowed, under penalties of reprisals, to show their faces in town on Election Day. It had looked as though the Civil War would break out anew as the Democrats resorted to every possible device to over throw the radicals.

Professor Franklin went on to say, “It was reported that in North Carolina the Klan was responsible for 260 outrages, including 7 murders and the whipping of 72 whites and 141 Negroes. In one county in South Carolina 6 men were murdered and more than 300 were whipped during the first six months of 1870. The personal indignities inflicted upon individual white and Negroes were so varied and so numerous as to defy classification or enumeration.”

In his book, The Abolitionist Legacy, Professor James McPherson reported, “In 1873, Louisiana became almost a synonym for chaos and violence. When Grant sent federal troops to install Kellogg in office [as governor], Louisiana Democrats were infuriated. They formed White Leagues which attacked black and white Republicans and took scores of lives.”

From his book entitled; Charles Sumner, Harvard Professor, David Hebert Donald reached the following conclusion: “Congress could give the Negro the vote, but all over the South the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist organizations systematically intimidated the freedmen, flogged or slaughtered their leaders and drove whites who worked with them into exile. Congress could require federal troops to supervise the registration of voters, but Negroes were waylaid and butchered on the roads to the registration offices. Congress could suppress outright violence by military force, but it could do nothing to protect Negroes from landlords who told them bluntly: If you vote with that Yankee [Republican] party you shall not live on our land.”

Professor Howard O. Linsay, the author of, A History of Black Americans says, “Blacks and sympathetic Whites were attacked and threatened. African Americans were discouraged from seeking elected office and even from trying to vote. Any and all means were used from threats to violence to outright murder.”

The following is what happened to Sam Hose and Mary Turner:

After a mob murdered Mary Turner’s husband, she threatened to swear out warrants against his killers. Several hundred men decided to teach her a lesson. They took this eight month pregnant woman from her home and after tying her ankles together, they hung her from a tree, head downward, dousing her clothes with gasoline, and burned them [the clothes] from her body. While she was still alive, someone used a knife ordinarily reserved for splitting hogs to cut open the woman’s abdomen. The baby fell from her womb to the ground and cried briefly, whereupon a member of the mob crushed the baby’s head beneath his heel. Then hundreds of bullets were fired into Mary Turner’s body.” [Page 14, Without Sanctuary – Foreword written by Democratic Congressman John Lewis].

These forms of torture were common in regions controlled by Democrats. The following is what they did to Sam Hose after falsely accusing him.

“After stripping Hose of his clothes and chaining him to a tree, the self-appointed executioners stacked kerosene-soaked wood high around him. Before saturating Hose with oil and applying the torch, they cut off his ears, fingers, and genitals, and skinned his face. While some in the crowd plunged knives into the victims flesh, others watched with unfeigning satisfaction, the contortions of Sam Hose’s body as flames rose, distorting his features, causing his eyes to bulge out of their sockets and rupturing his veins. The only sounds that came from the victim’s lips, even as his blood sizzled in the fire. were, “Oh my God! Oh, Jesus.” Before Hose’s body had even cooled, his heart and liver were removed and cut into several pieces and his bones were crushed into small particles. The crowd fought over these souvenirs. Shortly after the lynching, one of the participants reportedly left for the state capitol, hoping to deliver a slice of Sam Hose’s heart to the Democratic governor of Georgia, who would call Sam Hose’s deeds, “the most diabolical in the annals of crime.” [Page 15, ‘Without Sanctuary”]

After the brutal hanging, it was proven that Mr. Hose was innocent of the allege charges. They took parts of his body and displayed them in store windows, which was a common practice in towns, cities, counties and states controlled by Democrats.

I haven’t even scratched the surface. Time and space would not permit me to tell you about Dred Scott, the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, Plessy v. Ferguson, the Senate investigations of 1871, or the letters written by blacks in Kentucky in 1871 Louisiana in 1872, Alabama in 1874. From the New York riots of during the Civil War, to 1963 when the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed as Condoleezza Rice was preparing to go to Sunday School, wherever Democrats were in control, blacks have been tortured, intimidated and mutilated by Democrat officials and members of the Democratic Party. Senator Tillman of South Carolina said lynching blacks was justified. He went on to say: “Southern women will not submit to the black man gratifying his lust on our wives and daughter without lynching him.” This same Democratic Senator said: “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank and only one plank, namely that this is a white man’s country and white men must govern it.”

Now tell me Mr. President and Mr. Holder, how many detainees were beaten, [hung] hanged, raped, cut into pieces bombed and burned to death under Bush Administration? Before we start condemning the Bush Administration for their handling of the allege terrorist from foreign countries, why don’t we first review the Democratic Party who tortured the black citizens from their own country. Oh, one more thing. Mr. Holder, it was the Bush Administration that finally prosecuted the person that was responsible for the 16th Baptist Church bombing. Black conservatives are looking forward to hearings on torture.

Rev. Wayne Perryman
P.O. Box 256
Mercer Island, WA 98040
(206) 860-6880

Please send this e-mail to every citizen and talk show host in America.

[1] 1992 Encyclopaedia Britannica pp. 979
64 Reconstruction – The Great Experience, pp. 226-233
[2] Reconstruction After The Civil War, p. 157
[3] The Abolitionist Legacy, p.40
[4] Charles Sumner, p. 420
[5] A History of Black Americans, pp. 88-89
According to 88% of black folks vote for democrats--96% in this last election. Considering the gruesome history of the democratic party I question why Black Americans are so loyal to this party and if the loyalist have questioned why democrats have suddenly fallen in love with black folks? Well, the answer is that they have not they simply bamboozle the masses with empty promises. Well, they may throw out a few crumbs but that small price to pay in order to secure the black vote and to secure the path to the White House. They are now trying to beguile (actually they are doing it) the Hispanic people with the immigration reform efforts.


Ilé Meroë said...

One could just as easily say: given the gruesome history of the United States why are so many black people loyal to it? Are you, and if so why?
People were once tortured and murdered ostensibly in the name of Christ. Are you ashamed to call yourself a Christian? If not why not?

Conservative Black Woman said...

Ilé Meroë~I am loyal to this country Ile because this is the country of my birth and I am an American I am not an immigrant. This is a country with affords (or at least use to) affords me freedom. This is the only country where one can go from rags to riches (well at least it used to be). I am also able to be loyal to this country because throughout the annals of history there has always been people in this great country who decried and fought against the injustices which took place...most of those people where Christians and/or Republicans. Perhaps you should read about the history of the Republican party.

Yes, I am a Christian even though people have tortured in murdered ostensibly in the name of Christ but you see Ilo we live in fallen world and man is desperately deprived. Man can and will defile most anything just as those who murdered in the name of Christ did-- but that's takes absolutely nothing away from the God that I serve.

Katrina said...

Democrats have never had our best interests at heart.

I am SO GLAD I am no longer a liberal Democrat.

DJ Black Adam said...


This is one of the most intellectual fraudulent things I have ever seen written.

Good Lord...

Paul Ervin said...

what about the fact that the segregation democrats of the south ran to the GOP after the civil rights act and were welcomed with open arms.

23eagle said...

Beautiful. From where I am, (and as a white guy, what do I know, huh?) it seems to me that Democrats merely changed their tactics. No more KKK. They are a lot more subtle now. They just treat Americans of African descent like they're still slaves. What they're always whispering is "you can't do anything on your own, without us to help you" and "you'll ALWAYS be a victim" and "you need US to protect you." I mean, am I wrong? Isn't that some of the same crap slave owners used to say? And what does the white liberal left celebrate as what THEY say is "authentic black culture"? Stereotypes, thats what. I'm ashamed that I ever had anything to do with Democrats.

P.S. might be into the awesome smack-down of Janeane Garofalo over at

Robert said...

Ok DJ Black Adam:

Tell us specifically how this article is a fraud?

What facts did he get wrong? What references can you cite to prove he is wrong? He already gave his sources. What are yours?

Can you prove Rev. Perryman wrong?

Paul Ervin:

All the segregationist Democrats did not go to the GOP. Ask Senator Robert Byrd and former Senator Ernest Hollings for a start. Also when did the non-segretationist Republicans go to the Democratic Party?

Are you both in agreement with the following ridiculous demand that was written last year by a fool named Brother X who thinks he is black leader?:

"An Open Letter to Senator John “Maverick” McCain and the Republican National Committee:

"September 2, 2008

"Dear Senator McCain and Mike Duncan, Chairman, Republican National Committee:

"'Dear' is all you will get from me. By now you all should be in Minneapolis for your shindig that you call a 'convention.' We are building a movement.

"I am an African-American, and I cannot hold back my anger any longer. It is a documented fact that the Republican Party before and during the Civil War supported and benefited from slavery. As a matter of fact, the Republican Party was started for the express purpose of defending slavery and holding down black people.

"It is also a matter of record that the Ku Klux Klan was started by Republicans after the Civil War to terrorize and murder black and white Democrats in the South. Republicans hated the fact that many ex-slaves were serving in state and federal government. They also hated the fact that everyone of the ex-slaves were all members of the Democratic Party. All the white Democrats, before and after the Civil War, were sympathetic to the cause of abolition of slavery and of civil rights for blacks, therefore racist Republicans had no use for them.

"The Republicans historically have been bitter opponents of the following Democratic initiatives:

• The 13th Amendment that abolished slavery in 1865
• The 1866 Civil Rights Act
• The First Reconstruction Act of 1867
• The 14th Amendment in 1868 that made all persons born in the U.S., including former slaves, U.S. citizens.
• The 15th Amendment in 1870 that give every citizen the right to vote
• The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 which was to stop Republican Klansmen to terrorized white and black Democrats
• The 1875 Civil Rights Act
• The 1957 Civil Rights Act
• The 1964 Civil Rights Act
• The 1965 Voters Rights Act

"In every case, the white Republicans in the Senate, especially Senator Everett Dirksen, and in the House of Representatives fought passage of these laws in every turn as well as being Reublican slave masters compelled to give up their slaves after the Civil War. The Democratic leadership, especially Senator Robert Byrd who has always despised the Ku Klux Klan and who discouraged white Americans from joining that gang, fought very hard to have those laws passed. Democratic Senator Al Gore Sr., not only voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but he, along side of Senator Byrd, fought a 74-day filibuster by Republicans to defeat the legislation. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Republicans (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Democrats (27 for, 6 against) the Civil Rights Act. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Republicans (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act and. 80% of Democrats, (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

"The Republicans have also opposed every Democratic anti-lynching bill to their shame. The Democrats have always been opposed to lynchings for decades.

For these reasons, we black people deserve an apology from the Republican Party for the following:

• support of slavery, on record in their platforms
• support of the Dred Scott decision
• support of segregation and Jim Crow prejudice
• opposition to anti-lynching laws
• attempts to destroy black schools and colleges, and the burning of black churches
• efforts to defeat the Reparation Bill of 1866
• efforts to defeat every piece of Civil Rights legislation from 1863 to 1964
• efforts to have the 1875 Civil Rights Act declared unconstitutional
• support of the Ku Klux Klan, composed of entirely Republicans, and its vile and violent racist agenda:
• Republican participation in the lynchings of thousands of blacks.

"History will also show the following:
• Eugene “Bull” Conner (the poster boy of American racism) was a Republican.
• The poll tax was a Republican institution.
• Black codes and Jim Crow laws were instituted by Republicans.

"Africans Americans are even due reparations from the Republican Party since it supported and benefited from slavery as well as supporting KKK terror, racism, etc. The Civil Rights movement started because of the majority white racist Republican power structure in the South. We are building a movement.

"The Democratic Party, of course, has had its problems racially here and there, unfortunately, but it does not have the consistent racist legacy for decades and decades, stretching back to the early 1800’s as the Republican Party has had. The Democratic Party, in general, has always been supportive of and open and honest with African Americans throughout its history.

"You Republicans have been very slick in ignoring and even hiding your racist past from black people. It is time for the Republican Party to come clean, tell the truth, and settle the debt.


"Brother X"

What a piece of drivel.

Ilé Meroë said...

I can't speak for DJBA but I know why I find the piece disingenuous at best.
The Republican and Democrat parties went through a period of ideological realignment decades ago. So the document uses carefully selected truths to create a lie.
Why is it a lie? The Democrat party is no longer run in the same manner on the same platform or by the same people and has a different base than when these terrible events took place. The main link with the past is the name and that is of little importance compared to actual ideology.
Of course if Rev Perryman finds the name itself so painful he can lobby to have it changed, but I don't see that happening. After all he wouldn't want to play the victim card now would he?

Robert said...

Ile Meroe:

You are giving a very vague allegation with nothing to back yorself up. Where and when did these changes take place?

When did the non-racists Republicans make the exodus to join the Democratic Party? Who were they?

When we had Democratic Presidents, Democratic congressmen, Democratic mayors, Democratic state representatives, Democratic school superintendents, etc. running things, can you honestly say that blacks were doing great, especially in Detroit?

When the greatest cause of death in the Black community is abortion, over 16 million black babies killed, endorsed by the Democratic Party and not the Republican Party, how do we black people benefit from the Democrats when endorse our genocide?


You say "carefully selected truths to create a lie." Fill in the blanks and specifically tell us where Rev. Perryman misses it and cite references.

Prove Rev. Perryman a liar on this forum.

Anonymous said...

By Frances Rice

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.

DJ Black Adam said...

I will admit that in some cities like Chicago and Detroit the Democrats haven’t put much on the plate of the Black part of their base, however, the DNC can always say they got the first Black President of the United States elected, hate it or love it.

As for the author of this article, he paints a purposed fiction for his own political pandering and quite frankly just comes off as a “hater”, simple and plain. If you all can’t or won’t see that, it is what it is…

Robert said...

DJ Black Adam:

For the DNC to elect the first black president says absolutely nothing. It is something for black history month, yes. It is not how this black president starts, but how he finishes that counts. But the election placards did not say "BLACK." It said "HOPE" and "CHANGE." The DNC never claimed, "WE MUST ELECT A BLACK PRESIDENT." Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton never said that either, as black as they are.

Why have not the Democrats put much on the plate for blacks in Detroit and Chicago. This condition has been happening for decades.

And you retorted: "As for the author of this article, he paints a purposed fiction for his own political pandering and quite frankly just comes off as a 'hater', simple and plain. If you all can’t or won’t see that, it is what it is…"

Again, where are your facts to back yourself up? Your opinions are not facts, neither are they authorative. They degenerate into ad hominems which is only a disinformation tactic designed to avoid any debate.

If you believe that the sun sets in the east and rises in the west, you can believe that as much as you want to. It does not make it true. It is only true in your own mind.

Where are you verifiable facts to back yourself up?

Rev. Perryman is a harer of lies. That is the best "hater" there is.
He would wear that badge proudly.

Robert said...

Where are the Democrats when you need them???:

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama and black farmersBy BEN EVANS – 12 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — As a senator, Barack Obama led the charge last year to pass a bill allowing black farmers to seek new discrimination claims against the Agriculture Department. Now he is president, and his administration so far is acting like it wants the potentially budget-busting lawsuits to go away.

The change isn't sitting well with black farmers who thought they'd get a friendlier reception from Obama after years of resistance from President George W. Bush.

"You can't blame it on the Bush administration anymore," said John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, which has organized the lawsuits. "I can't figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn't want to implement a bill that he fought for as a U.S. senator."

At issue is a class-action lawsuit known as the Pigford case. Thousands of farmers sued USDA claiming they had for years been denied government loans and other assistance that routinely went to whites. The government settled in 1999 and has paid out nearly $1 billion in damages on almost 16,000 claims.

Farmers, lawyers and activists like Boyd have worked for years to reopen the case because thousands of farmers missed the deadlines for participating. Many said the filing period was too short and they were unaware of the settlement until it was too late.

The cause gained momentum in August 2007 when Obama, then an Illinois senator, introduced Pigford legislation about six months into his presidential campaign.

Although the case was hardly a hot-button political issue, it had drawn intense interest among African-Americans in the rural South. It was seen as a way for Obama to reach out in those areas, where he was not well-known and where he would need strong support to win the Democratic primary.

The proposal won passage in May as sponsors rounded up enough support to incorporate it into the 2008 farm bill. The potential budget implications were huge: It could easily cost $2 billion or $3 billion given an estimated 65,000 pending claims.

With pressure to hold down costs, lawmakers set an artificially low $100 million budget. They called it a first step and said more money could be approved later.

But with 25,000 new claims and counting, the Obama administration is now arguing that the $100 million budget should be considered a cap to be split among the successful cases.

The position — spelled out in a legal motion filed in February and reiterated in recent settlement talks — would leave payments as low as $2,000 or $3,000 per farmer. Boyd called that "insulting."

Boyd noted that Obama's legislation specifically called for the new claimants to be eligible for the same awards as the initial lawsuit, including expedited payments of $50,000 plus $12,500 in tax breaks that the vast majority of the earlier farmers received.

"I'm really disappointed," Boyd said. "This is the president's bill."

"They did discriminate against these farmers, maybe not all of them, but a lot of these people would prevail if they could go to court," he said.

The administration wouldn't discuss specific budget plans or commit to fully funding the claims.

But in a statement to The Associated Press, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the department agrees that more needs to be done and is working with the Justice Department to "ensure that people are treated fairly."

Kenneth Baer, a budget spokesman for the White House, also suggested that the White House is planning to do more.

"The president has been a leader on this issue since his days as a U.S. senator

DJ Black Adam said...

It isn't if what the good Rev. is saying is FACTUAL, it is how he is framing those "facts" which would be obvious as pure and purposed deception, to anyone with a cursory knowledge of US history.

Robert said...

DJ Black Adam:

The burden of proof is on you to disprove his assertions. You are retreating to your opinions again.

You have not demonstrated your premise. What you are saying is "I know what he is saying is true, but I don't like the way he says it." That is subjective.

Demonstrate your premise in a logical manner, please, because you seem to have a much better grasp of the facts than he has.

DJ Black Adam said...

There is nothing for me to prove. In this case, silentium est aureum. The more you rant shows the fact that you refuse to see the obvious, which is, not my problem.

Ilé Meroë said...

If you genuinely believe that the Democrats have the same ideology that they did in the era of Jim Crow, then there's no point continuing any kind of discussion with you. I've yet to come across a single peer-reviewed paper that would support your viewpoint and even if there are any it's obviously not a mainstream or even notable revisionist view of American political history.

Robert said...

DJ Black Adam:

You are punking out just like a coward.

Did you not tell me "There is nothing for me to prove. In this case, silentium est aureum. The more you rant shows the fact that you refuse to see the obvious, which is, not my problem"?

Silentium est aureum?
That is a punk answer. Silence may be golden, but your talk is very cheap, so cheap even Goodwill can't give it away for free.

What you said of me is not priceless. It is completely worthless: "I'm sure a raving buffoon as yourself would agree with a moron....I am used to being ignored by willfully ignorant cretins like you, ESPECIALLY ones from Chicago." And you told someone of me "he just doesn't know any better, all sound and fury signifying nothing."

OK. Let me rave on your worthless golden buff.

And you have the nerve of accusing me of not answering questions or being capable of debate elsewhere on this website?When I answered the other person's questions, you have the nerve to turn around do exactly what you accuse me of?

Shut your mouth and keep your gold.

We now have a permanent public record for everyone to see that you are utterly incapable of rational debate. You avoid questions you cannot answer and you resort to ad hominems such as "hater." Those are common disinformation tactics for people who realize they are intellectually defeated.

Before you start accusing people of being "intellectual frauds" as you have done, take a good look at yourself in the mirror because everyone sees exactly what kind of character you are, except you of course.

You are only a legend in your own mind which has to be closed so tightly, even gangbanging thugs cannot get in to take anything. The thugs even wondered if you had anything of value up there.

But don't mind me. I'm the resident "raving buffoon" and "ignorant cretin" lowering my standards to debate with people like you.

Robert said...

Ile Meroe:

You cannot back up your facts either.

I thought so.

DJ Black Adam said...

Punking out? lolololololol, maybe you have been reading too many DC Comics and have me confused with the character Black Adam who would obliterate you for such an insolent tone? Sorry, I don't respond to such sophomoric prodding.

Me, I just say, if you can't see the obvious problem with how the author presents his "facts", then you have the same character flaw he has it seems, that being "lack of integrity".

It is what it is.

Ilé Meroë said...

During the segregation era, the Democratic party had two wings one in the north and one in the south. These two wings had different attitudes to civil rights issues especially as pertaining to black people.
Feinstein, B. D. and Schickler, E. 2007-08-30 "State Party Platforms and Civil Rights Policy, 1920-1968"

The Democratic party in the south then underwent a drastic change
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, Vol. 66, No. 4, November 2004, Pp. 1001–1017
The Transformation of the Southern Democratic Party by Merle Black

I'm not sure why I bothered to put those two up and I'm not carrying such a peurile strand of discussion any further.

Robert said...

DJ Black Adam:

I don't know about any "Black Adam." You are the comic reader. I'm not.

And you still make a fool of yourself and do exactly what you have accused me of. You are like the Emperor who has no clothes.

Ile Meroe:

I'm not sure why you bothered either because they were not relevant to the discussion. It not even complete information. Therefore you cannot answer me with your pretence of intellectualism.

DJ Black Adam said...


"Say what you say, but give me that bomb beat from Dre..."

I will say though, I find your insolent tone...amusing...

MuscleDaddy said...

Black Adam,"Me, I just say, if you can't see the obvious problem with how the author presents his "facts", then you have the same character flaw he has it seems, that being "lack of integrity".Um, nooo...

If you can't present the 'flaws' in the author's presentation, despite your continued insistence that they exist and invalidate his premise - and continue to fall back to such a...what was the word...'sophomoric' stance as "Well, if you don't know I'm not going to tell you!"...then it's really not much of a stretch figure out who's being intellectually dishonest, is it?

- MuscleDaddy

p.s. - Green Lantern could slap your silly-ass down with a quickness.

Ilé Meroë said...

I think DJBA simply has more good sense than I do.
I put down the details of an article entitled "The Transformation of the Southern Democratic Party" which is available to view online. I was then told that it had nothing to do with a discussion about whether or not the Democratic party had changed. Life is too short to waste it on such foolishness.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...


1st off, Black Adam took out 3 Green Lanterns (Hal Jordan, Guy Gardner and John Stewart) and Alan Scott (former GL of Earth 2) in 52 and WWIII. You can spread lies about the democratic party, but I draw the line at spreading lies at any champion of SHAZAM.

Secondly, the author is intellectually fraudulent in his use of his facts, this isn't a "If you don't know I won't tell you", this is a "you know damn well and want to play stupid and as P-Diddy says: 'I got, NO TIME for Fake ones..."

The author weaves a fiction predicated on facts, he is of little if any integrity, and you sycophants are willfully ignorant at BEST.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@Ilé Meroë:

Come now, did you think something as simple as directing extremist like these to actually FACTS that contradict their cookie cutter positions would be taken seriously?

Truth is of no consequence to the sycophantic mindless masses, either on the left or in this case the Conservative "Christian" Reich...I mean "Right"..

Robert said...

DJ Black Adam:

You are a straight-up punk.

You said: "The author weaves a fiction predicated on facts, he is of little if any integrity, and you sycophants are willfully ignorant at BEST."

Your opinion is meaningless because you do not prove your point at all. You pretend your point is obvious. You are like a political Laura Petrie: "Well if you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you!"

You NEVER explain what the fiction is as many times I ask you to. But you want to give me the Latin "Silence is Golden" BS when I ask you.

Every one can read your comments and see you have been blowing smoke while you consciously avoid the facts.

Do you have verifiable facts against the author to back yourself up?

I bet you won't give me any. Just the same old, same old.

You are still a legend in your own mind.

Ile Meroe:

You cited a published work. You did not quote specific facts from those works that back you up that contrasts the history of both parties since you mentioned the GOP too.

DJ Black Adam said...

"Straight up punk"?


OOOOHHHH I "quake and tremble" (insert sarcasm, since it appears that some folk here are too slow to observe the obvious, I know inference might be beyond your grasp).

Again, I am amazed (yet not suprised) at the blatant hypocrisy of the Conservative Christian Reich...I mean "Right". The poster calling folks "punk" and other infantile blatherings,is the same cretin who got all bent out of shape with self righteous indignation at being called a "cretin".

Silly child.

Robert said...


I did not call folks "punk." I called you one.

That is for people who like to call people like me ad hominems like "buffoon" and "cretin" while avoiding intelligent discussion in pretending intelligence.

You really don't know what a fool you make of yourself here.

MuscleDaddy said...

DJ Black AdamHa! I was just trying to out you as a DC fan - and you fell neatly into my trap!

First Comics All-The-Way!!!

- MuscleDaddy

(although I will make an exception for "Green Arrow: The Longbow Hunters")

Donna said...

My goodness! I stopped by to view the latest and greatest debate swaddled in intellectualism and what do I find? A rant by a reverend who seems to have misplaced his history books! It's actually more embarrassing to read, but equally funny. I actually laughed aloud.

Distorted history in the hands of religious zealots. What's new?

Robert said...

My goodness, Donna!

What items specifically did Rev. Perryman get distorted?

Also can you give sources to back up your assertions?

DJ Black Adam said...

"You really don't know what a fool you make of yourself here."

A contrario, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Run along son, grown folks is talking...

Robert said...

DJ Black Adam:

You slight error. You said "grown folks is talking..."

It should be "grown folks are talking." And from a punk to this grown man I should take that as a compliment.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...


No, I meant "grown folks IS talking", which is a Southern colloquial term, I'm suprised someone as "learned" as you didn't know that.

Son, you really aren’t qualified to correct my spelling let alone my grammar, run along now, I think you can still catch Dora the Explorer if you are swift. Be a big boy and stand on your "I'm not talking to DJ Black Adam" schtick, because (as the Roots would say) "your mouth is running and you ain't said nothin' yet"....

Robert said...

DJ Black Adam:

When you point your finger at me, you manage to have 3 pointing back at you.

"your mouth is running and you ain't said nothin' yet...."

You are leading by example.