Candace Owens Congressional Testimony (New PragerU video)

[_EAllusion]

This version of history you are expressing SPG is quite wrong. I guess I would recommend reading some examples of Kevin Kruse threads to hopefully start the process of unwinding your misunderstandings. Part of what makes Candace Owens so bad is she is a cog in an apparatus that has deliberately misinformed you.

She didn't misinform me, she spoke for me.

I know history in the schools tell a different story, that the switch did happen. But you don't even have to look that deep to see the tampering.

Why would the blacks join the party of the KKK and the group that tried to justify their enslavement?

I linked, in this thread, multiple examples of Owens lying and misrepresentating historical sources with direct links to the underlying primary sources.

[_SPG]

She didn't misinform me, she spoke for me.

I know history in the schools tell a different story, that the switch did happen. But you don't even have to look that deep to see the tampering.

Why would the blacks join the party of the KKK and the group that tried to justify their enslavement?

I linked, in this thread, multiple examples of Owens lying and misrepresentating historical sources with direct links to the underlying primary sources.

Don't. Just don't.

I don't follow everything she says, but she points are valid accounting to my own research and that of millions of others. That you find conflicts doesn't concern me. I know the books are cooked on this subject, it was the only way Democrats could sell it.

Democrats own the school systems for a reason, but not too miss the statistic that blacks still struggle to get a fair education.

[_Res Ipsa]

Don't. Just don't.

I don't follow everything she says, but she points are valid accounting to my own research and that of millions of others. That you find conflicts doesn't concern me. I know the books are cooked on this subject, it was the only way Democrats could sell it.

Democrats own the school systems for a reason, but not too miss the statistic that blacks still struggle to get a fair education.

It's truly amazing how you will claim that "all perspectives are valid" until you get to politics. Then it's right wing all the way.

[_SPG]

Don't. Just don't.

I don't follow everything she says, but she points are valid accounting to my own research and that of millions of others. That you find conflicts doesn't concern me. I know the books are cooked on this subject, it was the only way Democrats could sell it.

Democrats own the school systems for a reason, but not too miss the statistic that blacks still struggle to get a fair education.

It's truly amazing how you will claim that "all perspectives are valid" until you get to politics. Then it's right wing all the way.

I didn't say your perspective was invalid. I think I even understand why you think what you think on this subject. What I mean by your perspective is valid, is that I don't believe you are lying or that you are a bad person. You see things the way you see them. I don't think that you are intentionally lying to me or hateful.

However, my research shows there was deliberate tampering with the academic history on this subject. The Democrats never switched platforms. They convinced the black people that they did and motivated them to switch parties to the Democratic party. I read the history myself. Said right there in the textbook that the Democrats saw the light and switch their platform.

I have reason to believe that this is one reason Democrats intentionally assassinated John f Kennedy so that Lyndon b Johnson could take over. He was the hateful MoFo that spearheaded a lot of this.

[_subgenius]

is thre a certain applicable law or corporate by-law that restricts "arbitrary" for them?

I'm not a lawyer but they probably aren't doing anything illegal. Am I only allowed to point out arbitrary behavior if it is illegal?[/quote]
of course not, but that means your objection is arbitrary, and where can a rational discussion begin when the premise is "arbitrary behavior objects to arbitrary behavior "?

[_Kevin Graham]

However, my research shows...

That you're an idiot. We get it.

there was deliberate tampering with the academic history on this subject.

Alex Jones level stupidity here. You're like a mix between LDSfaqs and Doc, with a splash of subgenius.

[_honorentheos]

I read the history myself. Said right there in the textbook that the Democrats saw the light and switch their platform.

"in the textbook"? You mind sharing what textbook that might be?

I have reason to believe that this is one reason Democrats intentionally assassinated John f Kennedy so that Lyndon b Johnson could take over. He was the hateful MoFo that spearheaded a lot of this.

That sure sounds reasonable as an explanation. The Democrats, monolith of villainy that term implies, killed one of their own who was championing civil rights so that another of their own could take the same job the other guy held who had a history of voting down civil rights legislation as a double fake out master move.

Or does the textbook not talk about Johnson and desegregation? I'm guessing your textbook is someone like Glenn Beck who spreads stories like the supposed quote of Johnson's that the Civil Rights Act was intended to win the n-word vote. The source of said quote being a steward on Air Force One in a gossipy tell all put out three decades after the signing of the CRA. So, sounds like real history to me.

[_Res Ipsa]

I didn't say your perspective was invalid. I think I even understand why you think what you think on this subject. What I mean by your perspective is valid, is that I don't believe you are lying or that you are a bad person. You see things the way you see them. I don't think that you are intentionally lying to me or hateful.

However, my research shows there was deliberate tampering with the academic history on this subject. The Democrats never switched platforms. They convinced the black people that they did and motivated them to switch parties to the Democratic party. I read the history myself. Said right there in the textbook that the Democrats saw the light and switch their platform.

I have reason to believe that this is one reason Democrats intentionally assassinated John f Kennedy so that Lyndon b Johnson could take over. He was the hateful MoFo that spearheaded a lot of this.

I don't think you have the faintest idea why I think what I do about this subject. Or the faintest clue as to the actual history. You're the poster boy for "alternative facts."

[Guest]

I didn't say your perspective was invalid. I think I even understand why you think what you think on this subject. What I mean by your perspective is valid, is that I don't believe you are lying or that you are a bad person. You see things the way you see them. I don't think that you are intentionally lying to me or hateful.

However, my research shows there was deliberate tampering with the academic history on this subject. The Democrats never switched platforms. They convinced the black people that they did and motivated them to switch parties to the Democratic party. I read the history myself. Said right there in the textbook that the Democrats saw the light and switch their platform.

I have reason to believe that this is one reason Democrats intentionally assassinated John f Kennedy so that Lyndon b Johnson could take over. He was the hateful MoFo that spearheaded a lot of this.

I don't think you have the faintest idea why I think what I do about this subject. Or the faintest clue as to the actual history. You're the poster boy for "alternative facts."

I'm going to admit that I really don't have a clue why you think what you think. You are well informed, and just as pigheaded I might expect from a person. History is just "his-story." I accept that there are different versions of it. You might think there is an "actual history" but for every observer, there is a different history.

Just because some "discredited" the witness to Johnson's racist comment, doesn't mean it wasn't said. What Candace is saying, Johnson used promises from the government to swing the opinion of the black vote, to trap them in dependencies, to create a victim mentality, etc.

She isn't is a victim, and right away words like "human garbage" are used to describe her. I hear wisdom, truth, and awesomeness. She is a young lady, making her voice to be heard. She is my equal. She is happily my fellow citizen, one that doesn't blame me for her problems. She doesn't see me as her my enemy, nor do I see her as my enemy. She does not need my destruction or my disgrace to feel good about herself.

Her "alternative facts" are actually backed up by bunch of different renounce scholars.

True history is written by. . . . well, the writers. We all know factual history doesn't exist, but rather the perspectives of the writers. One the many reasons I insist life is illusion. You can find historical items, but you don't know the ACTUAL, ACTUAL, ACTUAL, history of that thing. You assume stuff, you read stuff, but don't know for sure.

I think we also know, people in power will go through a lot of trouble to bend perception by tampering with history.

There are many historical "alternative facts" that point to the evidence that Johnson assassinated Kennedy. This is just one. That people are trying to suppress this sort is pretty obvious.

https://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/jacqueline-kennedys-jfk-assassination-theory-28064/

[_Kevin Graham]

EA explained what's wrong with Candace better than anyone here probably could. You don't see it because you're more pigheaded as you claim others are. Candace does the world a disservice. She isn't someone with special insight, she is just an opportunist who uses the attention she gets from Conservatives to spew their idiotic talking points and the only reason she is able to do this is because she's black. She has nothing to offer except ignorance. The same kind of ignorance that led her to dropping out of college to become a blogging spokesperson for people like you who hate education. Nothing she says is correct. She's easily refuted and the only reason you like her is because you believe the same stupid crap she's spewing.