Loves America, freedom and liberty.

The Donald Tells It like it is..

Jebbie The Weak.. Rubio The Crybaby.. Cruz..a good guy in my book , but too hard core GOP to be elected.. It Is what it is..

You think Cruz is a good guy? I was actually feeling sorry for him getting picked on so much until I heard that when asked about Christian persecution in the middle east, he said it was because they were anti-Semitic. Sick.
Cruz is has cia dirty as Obama.
I thought this was going to be about Trump getting assassinated like JFK if he actually does try to change anything. JFK woke up and was going to clean house.

True shit is always True.

JFK was so handsome and oozed so much charisma, Pussy was practically throwing themselves at him. The man had the sexual appetite of a biblical Old Testament king. Trump probably can't even get pussy from his own wife, unless he buys her some expensive jewelry.

Maybe so, but liberals and BLM will crank up the shootings and mayhem.

I'm not taking any of thier bullshit.

Get yourselves ready. The pissed off losers will riot in every democratic city.

I'm the words of baltimores mayor " you have to give them Space to destroy "

Come get some.

JFK was a stud though... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JFK was so handsome and oozed so much charisma,
> Pussy was practically throwing themselves at him.
> The man had the sexual appetite of a biblical Old
> Testament king. Trump probably can't even get
> pussy from his own wife, unless he buys her some
> expensive jewelry.
Attachments:

JFK was a stud though... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JFK was so handsome and oozed so much charisma,
> Pussy was practically throwing themselves at him.
> The man had the sexual appetite of a biblical Old
> Testament king. Trump probably can't even get
> pussy from his own wife, unless he buys her some
> expensive jewelry.


Trump's wife is way hotter bro.

Nice shot Bro'Trump.

I've flown through JFK. It's a dump. Disgusting, run-down, and just plain sad. So yes, I think you're right!

Trump is the next Barry Goldwater.

The right fails at everything Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump is the next Barry Goldwater.

He's got all the FFXU hockey pucks fired up. That's about as far as it goes though. The epicness of his defeat in a general campaign would be epic.

The right fails at everything Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump is the next Barry Goldwater.


Yes, it's possible he could lose to a racist bigot like Goldwater did.

You mean the guy who got all those civil rights acts passed? THAT racist bigot?

LHXK3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Loves America, freedom and liberty.

That's stupid.

LHXK3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Loves America, freedom and liberty.
Attachments:

Hussein is a muslim name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The right fails at everything Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Trump is the next Barry Goldwater.
>
>
> Yes, it's possible he could lose to a racist bigot
> like Goldwater did.

What country are you talking about? In the USA the president doesn't pass laws, Congress does. Eisenhower pushed through the 1957 civil rights act opposed by Johnson. Later, it was the Republicans in Congress that passed those laws under racist democrat Johnson, NOT democrats.

Hey, I know it's difficult for you to comprehend historically documented facts, votes and laws, you're a lib.

I don't dislike trump, but you are giving him way too much credit. Too early to tell,

Hussein is a muslim name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey, I know it's difficult for you to comprehend
> historically documented facts, votes and laws,
> you're a lib.

And you're a worthless fucking asshole. As people of even well below average intelligence ought to know, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a weak and ineffective piece of bullshit legislation. Real civil rights legislation did not come along until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. That's all Johnson, all the time, dumbshit. LBJ himself said at the time that he'd lost the south for 50 years, as scum-sucking racists in droves signed on to the Republican Party, which is where these low-grade slimeballs have hung out ever since.

^^^^ lol! hahahahaha...

The right fails at everything Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hussein is a muslim name Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hey, I know it's difficult for you to
> comprehend
> > historically documented facts, votes and laws,
> > you're a lib.
>
> And you're a worthless fucking asshole. As people
> of even well below average intelligence ought to
> know, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a weak and
> ineffective piece of bullshit legislation. Real
> civil rights legislation did not come along until
> the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights
> Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
> That's all Johnson, all the time, dumbshit. LBJ
> himself said at the time that he'd lost the south
> for 50 years, as scum-sucking racists in droves
> signed on to the Republican Party, which is where
> these low-grade slimeballs have hung out ever
> since.

Oh my how it must hurt to be a lib. More historical voting facts.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

Now swallow that pill chump.

The right fails at everything Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And you're a worthless fucking asshole. As people
> of even well below average intelligence ought to
> know...


Well, that cuts out Gerry and the rest of the libtards here.

Hussein is a muslim name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a
> Republican, integrated the US military and
> promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower
> pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One
> of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on
> civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than
> Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate
> Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight
> segregationist line until he changed his position
> and supported the 1957 Act.
>
> Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
> supported by a higher percentage of Republicans
> than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the
> House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63
> percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the
> Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69
> percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Fact: The Democratic Party gets all, and I mean A-L-L, of the credit for enacting civil rights legislation in this country at the national level.

Man, that's gotta sting, eh?

> Opinion: Contrary to popular misconception, the
> parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats
> just switched from overt racism to a subversive
> strategy of getting blacks as dependent as
> possible on government to secure their votes. At
> the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign
> to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy
> as greedy racists.

Yes, you're still welcome to your opinion, Chief.

Truth is, the political descendants of the pre-'64 Act Dixie-crats (racist southern Democrats) are now racist southern Republicans.

Majorette Tommie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hussein is a muslim name Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a
> > Republican, integrated the US military and
> > promoted civil rights for minorities.
> Eisenhower
> > pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
> One
> > of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on
> > civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than
> > Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate
> > Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight
> > segregationist line until he changed his
> position
> > and supported the 1957 Act.
> >
> > Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
> > supported by a higher percentage of Republicans
> > than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In
> the
> > House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63
> > percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the
> > Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69
> > percent of the Democrats voted for it.
>
> Fact: The Democratic Party gets all, and I mean
> A-L-L, of the credit for enacting civil rights
> legislation in this country at the national
> level.
>
> Man, that's gotta sting, eh?
>
> > Opinion: Contrary to popular misconception, the
> > parties never "switched" on racism. The
> Democrats
> > just switched from overt racism to a subversive
> > strategy of getting blacks as dependent as
> > possible on government to secure their votes.
> At
> > the same time, they began a cynical smear
> campaign
> > to label anyone who opposes their devious
> strategy
> > as greedy racists.
>
> Yes, you're still welcome to your opinion, Chief.
>
> Truth is, the political descendants of the pre-'64
> Act Dixie-crats (racist southern Democrats) are
> now racist southern Republicans.


Just because you do not agree to historical facts and recorded congressional votes that will never change, does not make them opinions or otherwise as they have been documented.

In other words. Suck it! You're a racist and a chump.

Oh, by the way. Is interracial marriage in DC still a felony? That's the kind of legislation democrats passed for civil rights.

What a guy...
Attachments:

He loves Elvis, horses, and his momma too. I'm a bad boy.

Dumald Drumpf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a guy...


So he's got family money in common with Kennedy too! I never thought about that. It may not be as much or have as much lineage, but still.

More like the next KKK with his own SS.

They only have themselves to blame for whipping up the anti-Muslim hysteria. Pretending as if ISIS just came out of nowhere when the CIA has been training the jihadists in Turkey and Jordan for the better part of five years now. Trying to pass off FBI sting operations as real terrorist plots. Never mentioning that the Al Qaeda and ISIS operatives are FBI undercover informants and agents...

Hussein is a muslim name Wrote:


> Oh my how it must hurt to be a lib. More

No, it's really quite pleasant. We don't have to attend the Daily Hate, and live under the heavy cloud of fear. We're never angry at, just bemused by, the loyal opposition.

> historical voting facts.
> Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a
> Republican, integrated the US military and
> promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower

President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, signed the executive order that desegregated the U.S. military in July, 1948.


> pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One
> of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on
> civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than
> Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate
> Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight
> segregationist line until he changed his position
> and supported the 1957 Act.

Your knowledge and understanding of these events is shallow. Many politicians were trying to do what was right, acknowledge the growing political influence of blacks, and seek cover from their racist constitutents at the same time. In the end, "horse trading" was as much the tradition of Congress then as gridlock is today.

>
> Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
> supported by a higher percentage of Republicans
> than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the
> House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63
> percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the
> Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69
> percent of the Democrats voted for it.

Your numbers are essentially correct, but what you are failing to take into account was who those Republicans and Democrats actually were. I don't have the time nor inclination to explain this in depth, but you should consider that many (since you like numbers, you can look up the percentages) of the "liberal" Republicans voting in favor were what was once called "Northeastern Republicans" or a "Lindsay Republicans" -- fiscally conservative, socially liberal, basically isolationist in foreign affairs. Lindsay Republicans lost their home in the Goldwater dominated GOP of the 1960s and became Democrats.

Democrats, on the other hand, were a mishmash of policies and politicians, from the liberal northern branch to the racist southern part. Their disunity and infighting by the beginning of the 20th century was so severe that American humorist and political observer Will Rogers once quipped in the 1920s, "I am not a member of any organized party. I am a Democrat." They were, for the most part, held together by a populist streak.

Democrats schismed as well in the 1960s, with the southern contingent splitting off into first the "silent majority" and then the Reagan democrats. This can largely be attributed to the success of the George Wallace/Richard Nixon "Southern Strategy" -- Wallace, who was surprisingly liberal on matters other than race, created it, Nixon usurped it; and every Republican candidate since has continued to use it. The Southern Strategy is built on white fear of an imagined loss of status and social position to "the other".


>
> Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the
> parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats
> just switched from overt racism to a subversive
> strategy of getting blacks as dependent as
> possible on government to secure their votes. At
> the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign
> to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy
> as greedy racists.

Well, that strategy of getting blacks "hooked" on government handouts doesn't seem to work all that well. States such as Mississippi, Arkansas, and West Virginia all have much higher rates of whites on government assistence than blacks, but it doesn't appear to incline them more towards the Democratic party.

In truth, the Democrats didn't "switch" on racism. They sloughed off the racist elements in their membership, which, sadly, meant the south.

What was left of the GOP after Goldwater, the so called "country club" (1%) Republicans scooped up the disaffected south with glee and formed a new power base; which is unraveling now after 40 years.

>
> Now swallow that pill chump.

Your concluding remark baffles me, everytime I hear or read one of your types claiming that Democrats have a "cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists."

Why should this bother you? It's not a crime to be a racist, only to act out of racial anomosity. Are you that conflicted, or is your sense of victimization that complete?

Quintus Fabius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No, it's really quite pleasant. We don't have to
> attend the blah blah blah blah


^ It's like the fucking Vagina Monologues every time this dumbshit posts.

So, facts prove democrats are racist. Thank you.

lol, thank you for that short indepth detailed history lesson and good analysis. Although the crowd that needs to hear it the most is not susceptible to history or facts, I appreciated reading it. Even I learned a thing or two.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, thank you for that short indepth detailed
> history lesson and good analysis. Although the
> crowd that needs to hear it the most is not
> susceptible to history or facts, I appreciated
> reading it. Even I learned a thing or two.

You must be referring to the Hussein guy. Those were the only facts posted. Quintis only posted opinion. Have you finally woken up?

Oh yeah, the KKK is just another great democrat I stitution. You'll probably spin that to a disagree with historic facts. Oh and democrats murdered JFK, another fact.

Oh, you still can't vote! Another historic fact.

LHXK3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Loves America, freedom and liberty.


If you mean "the next JFK" because he will get his head blown off then I'm all for it.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, thank you for that short indepth detailed
> history lesson and good analysis. Although the
> crowd that needs to hear it the most is not
> susceptible to history or facts, I appreciated
> reading it. Even I learned a thing or two.


No [person who refuses to see what's in front of him], what you have is a list of facts on one hand and a lot of blah, blah, blah with no supported facts stated on the other hand. What is it about the obvious that you don't get? Oh, that's right, you're just a troll. Nevermind.

they were both born into enormous wealth. Unlike the Kennedys and Bushs Granddad Trump was an honest business man. Like Bush, Kennedy Trump was a spoiled rich kid so yea, he could be similar to JFK. Clinton and Obama were raised working class by single mom's and are self-made.

The next JFK?

He should probably stay away from Dallas and avoid convertibles.

Hussein is a muslim name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a
> Republican, integrated the US military and
> promoted civil rights for minorities.

The military was desegregated under Executive Order 9981 signed on July 26, 1948 by President Harry S. Truman.

> Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

He did no such thing. While focused on voting rights, the 1957 bill was an effort to underscore federal supremacy in the wake of Brown v BOE and southern resistance to that decision, including of course the wave of "Massive Resistance" that had been seen right here in Northern Virginia.

> One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil
> rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson,
> then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.

There was nothing to have opposed. Eisenhower had no record on civil rights until Brown v BOE had to be enforced, and that of course was primarily an issue of federal powers. And for being such a racist, it might have been surprising that Johnson did not oppose, but championed the 1957 bill, working to rally support for it among civil rights leaders on the basis of half a loaf being better than none. Quite understandably at the time, that group was looking for serious action, not crumbs from Congress. There was in any case no way Johnson could have steered the bill around the southern racists in the Senate, all of whom were Democrats in those days. The Judiciary Committee in particular was able to water down the bill to make it more difficult to enforce, and in the end, the bill passed at all only because Johnson had taken ominous head-counts to the administration who agreed to a weakened, compromise version that LBJ thought he actually could push through. That effort barely did succeed, but the win was mostly psychological. The again LBJ-backed Civil Rights Act of 1960 was an attempt to beef up the effectiveness of the faltering 1957 act, but while an improvement, it made very little difference on the ground. Real progress would have to wait until 1964, 1965, and 1968.

> LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he
> changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.

He had voted the states-rights line, which as a pragmatist politician from a states-rights state, he was literally obliged to do. He was a politician and didn't put fights that he could win at risk by engaging in fights that he could not win.

> Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
> supported by a higher percentage of Republicans
> than Democrats in both houses of Congress.

So what? Originally submitted by JFK, the bill had languished in the Senate for a year until RINO Everett Dirksen -- ashamed of his own party -- gave an impassioned plea to end the racist filibuster of the bill. But that 1964 act and the ones that followed it were voted on AT ALL only because of the energies and commitment of President Johnson. Even knowing that the southern racists would bolt the party over it and be welcomed in by Republicans, LBJ stood firm and did what he knew was right for the country.

> Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the
> parties never "switched" on racism.

Correct The parties had little to do with it. What happened was that all the rac1ists simply bolted as expected from the Democratic Party and fled into the welcoming arms of the Republican Party. Still racists under whatever party label. It was then of course Richard M. Nixon who worked in 1968 to capitalize on this effect at the polls with his infamously racist "Southern Strategy". The GOP has stood for racism ever since.

> The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a
> subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as
> possible on government to secure their votes.

That's just Coulter-grade nonsense. The facts are that the right has long hated "safety net" programs, first because Democrats get all the credit for them, and second because they send what are actually token amounts of resources to the poor and to minorities, which -- with help from Republicans -- are often the same group. It is the long-standing Republican refusal even to recognize, much less deal with, whole ranges of social welfare problems that drives their victims to support Democrats. It is not that Democrats have done such a fabulous job for them that turns the tide, but rather the fact that they know for certain that the GOP will stiff them, just as they always have. You have only YOURSELVES to blame for the persistent and well-justified hatred that minority Americans have for you.

> At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign
> to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy
> as greedy racists.

Sounds like another round of phony whine from a greedy (and lying) racist to me.

> Now swallow that pill chump.

Bite me, you worthless right-wing stooge. You've only made one whopping, biggie-sized fool of yourself here.

Hussein is a muslim name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, by the way. Is interracial marriage in DC still a felony?
> That's the kind of legislation democrats passed for civil rights.

The 1967 case in point was was Loving v Virginia. The Lovings, Richard and Mildred, had been married in Washington, D.C. in 1958 in order to evade Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws.

Quintus Fabius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat, signed the executive
> order that desegregated the U.S. military in July, 1948.

You'd think he could have gotten that much right.

> What was left of the GOP after Goldwater, the so
> called "country club" (1%) Republicans scooped up
> the disaffected south with glee and formed a new
> power base; which is unraveling now after 40 years.

It had actually unraveled in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate, resulting in the election of Jimmy Carter. But with racists still in tow, the GOP was able to add two new groups to the fold -- flag-waver disaffected neocons and fundie religious extremists. What a sorry lot!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, thank you for that short indepth detailed
> history lesson and good analysis. Although the
> crowd that needs to hear it the most is not
> susceptible to history or facts, I appreciated
> reading it. Even I learned a thing or two.


^ Speaking of vaginas...

Wow, Hillary was right about something. Democrat voters are stupid and will believe anything.

If the sky is blue and Obama says it's yellow, democrats say it's yellow even though they can see that it's blue.

No hope for dopes!

Damnnn, rightards got taken to task on this thread. Wasn't even close. Their knowledge of history and the present are completely skewed. It's their propagandist rightard sources and their collective propensity for revisionism. That and useful idiots perfectly content with living a lie and always fighting to establish the narrative.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Damnnn, rightards got taken to task on this
> thread. Wasn't even close. Their knowledge of
> history and the present are completely skewed.
> It's their propagandist rightard sources and their
> collective propensity for revisionism. That and
> useful idiots perfectly content with living a lie
> and always fighting to establish the narrative.


Right, the Constitution doesn't exist and you're a legal voter.

The US Constitution and the Bizarro Constitution that right-wingers want to go by are two very different things. Like reality itself, the US Constitution is a decidedly liberal thing.

JFK's torch had to be relit when ...

Obama installed an active CUBAN MILITARY CAPTAIN to captain a nuclear warship of USA in Florida (who recently if not still actively served the Cuban military)

and Obama did exactly that - and much more

the spanish have attacked europe, south america north america, throughout history and today are walking across the border to spend USA money using commuist gov jobs they demand will be created for them, in great numbers

obama installing an active military captain from a country whos funding is heavily from any country except USA (cuba post cold era was a vacation playground for the wealthy of any non-USA frieldy nation; and has investment ties similarly) - simply shows obama has no interest in protecting USA, but to make USA weak

similarly during OBAMA was a general's claim that lack of any FCC oversight had lead to a collapse of any control of the telephone companies in USA, leading to massive evesdropping, phony web content, likley massive banking fraud by telephone hacking, and other attacks from abroad - even usa gov and military telephone and internet being "serviced" obroad by companies not owned or run in the usa, by satellites not launched by usa, their "confidential" papers transfered to (xxx) before arriving at their intented destination in the USA

which is pitiful when we think: USA made ma bell at&t and verizon before any other country and lead and patented most of the technology up until clinton and obama - and had put all of the space and satellites usa used up there

so during obama the passwords to the satellites are "sold to a foreign investor" for mere counterfeit money and usa workes are told there's no more investment money ?

so during obama cell phone towers can be installed by hostile governments in any area and run tcp boundry breaking software that runs non-telephone code hacks on usa cell towers ?

thanks obama. but it's not a bill i'm going to sign off on.

70's and 80's post war (wwii vietnam etc) vets suffered poverty and citizens lived in boxes - allot due to a rampage initiative to put satellites into space at any cost. it was work or die at times, it was eat beans until your next paycheck for others.

and obama gonna just let anyone steal the technology and use USA funded NASA and usa military missle technology to put ripped of technology in USA air space to harass usa with foreign demands or even undermine usa military security ?

not only that: but buy russian rockets that have a tendancy to fail to do it ?

and hey while your at it why not fund europeans to make Space X using our money not theirs, but WHOLEY OWNED by europeans, on our soil living in our homes ?

thanks obama !

but your though i'm writing any of the debt down in my book: dont count on it

Libtaded. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Damnnn, rightards got taken to task on this
> > thread. Wasn't even close. Their knowledge of
> > history and the present are completely skewed.
> > It's their propagandist rightard sources and
> their
> > collective propensity for revisionism. That
> and
> > useful idiots perfectly content with living a
> lie
> > and always fighting to establish the narrative.
>
>
> Right, the Constitution doesn't exist and you're a
> legal voter.

Limited taxes (if any), limited government, States rights and individual freedom are as far from liberalism as can be. There is not one aspect of liberalism that is remotely close to being constitutional.

There's that imaginary Bizarro Constitution rearing its ugly head again. The WHOLE PURPOSE of the actual US Constitution was to give a haircut to "states rights" by creating a far more powerful central government than the one that was failing so completely under the tragically flawed designs of the Articles of Confederation. Dumbfucks don't know about any of that of course. Actual history is far too painful for them to bother with actually learning any of it. Stupid America-hating dumbshits.