Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,396
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + + + +
wager? anyone?
I explained it in context. If the context is removed, so must be the link.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 16:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
I explained it in context. If the context is removed, so must be the link.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 16:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
==More fantasy==
I think this is pure fantasy:
:''Prior to the [[Reagan Realignment]], the [[Democratic Party]] was the party of the South - it overwhelmingly controlled the South. Especially prior to [[Strom Thurmond|Strom Thurmond's]] "[[Dixiecrat]]" splinter movement, the [[Democratic Party]] was responsible for a good deal of racist legislation, and was perceived to be connected to the Klan. However, such a causal connection is over fifty years old and the Klan bears no connection with any modern mainstream political party.''
Facts are, the Democratic party still controls the South at all levels of government, and any so-called "re-alingnment" was fictional or imaginary. But you get an "E" for "effort", putting Reagan's name on the KKK page. And the claim "the Klan bears no connection with any modern mainstream political party", we would have to actually ask Klansman what thier party preference is for this claim to be valid; anyone willing to wager what the result would be? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)