Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, July 03, 2014

In South Carolina, a BBQ restaurant owner claimed that he was within his rights to refuse service to blacks based on his religious beliefs. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant ... "I'm just a fair man. I want to be known as a hard-working, Christian man that loves God and wants to further (God's) work throughout the world as I have been doing throughout the last 25 years."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

TFDNihilist

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Modern Libertarian conservatism. Going to vote for Paul, no doubt.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2014-07-02 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

although he was perfectly OK with taking their money, so long as they ordered their food to-go.

Posted by TFDNihilist at 12:39 PM | 1 COMMENT | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

The next step is to collect their money and give them their food at the backdoor to the restaurant, so the white folk don't have to see them at all.

This is all been seen before, and not that long ago. Some of us remember.

Your Republican Party at work. The Party of Freedom. Ya'll need a Crow as your symbol. Name him Jim.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2014-07-02 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

-Going to vote for Paul, no doubt.

Yep, this is the America the Pauls want for us.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant

Great! What faith? Quote scripture.

Christian Identity doesn't count.

#4 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

"And now for you who actually took the time to read the story instead of basing your outrage solely off a headline before sharing with an ALL CAPS blurb of "SEE? I TOLD YOU THE SOUTH WAS FULL OF RACISTS!!!", this case was heard by the Supreme Court in 1968."

"Even Mr. Bessinger's own brother turned on him when the NAACP threatened a boycott after it was revealed that he was distributing pro-slavery literature in his restaurants, causing almost every grocery chain, including Wal-Mart, to yank his product from the shelves. Yet, he stood by his racism even though it cost him almost 98 percent of his business."

The saga of Bessinger... I guess you need family in South Carolina to know anything about it. That dude was a hardcore racist with fantastic BBQ. He had a confederate flag on his sauce bottles. He died.. 10-15 years ago? The sauce probably one of the top mustard based bbq sauces on the market. Delicious. Can't taste racism. His family cleaned up the businesses image, relabeled everything, now you can find the sauce in stores.

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-02 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

oops, he died 5 years ago, not 10-15.

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-02 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"50 years ago, Mr. Bessinger used a similar argument as Hobby Lobby to say that despite laws outlawing segregation, his religious beliefs trumped federal law under the 1st Amendment. Maurice Bessinger also lost his appeal to the Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision of 8-0.

Like Hobby Lobby, Maurice's Piggie Park BBQ wanted to use the 1st Amendment in order to claim freedom of religion to impose the out of touch views of the owner on others.

Not only content to discriminate against blacks at his own establishments, Maurice Bessinger also then used his influence against another restaurant owner who integrated his business.

Oh yeah, and then he ran for office, lost and blamed intellectuals and liberals. Sound familiar? "

from the article we read

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Some epic fails happening here! Looks like Sitz is the only person who read the article before commenting.

"Modern Libertarian Conservatism"?
"Going to vote for Paul"?

IN 1968!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! [feel free to facepalm at any time, boys]

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-07-02 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

South Carolina?

www.nytimes.com

Making Florida look sane for over 100 years.

#9 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-07-02 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some epic fails happening here! Looks like Sitz is the only person who read the article before commenting.

#8 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2014-07-02 01:33 PM | FLAG:

I had a feeling I knew exactly what place it was before clicking the link. I'm pretty sure some of the relabeled sauce is in my parents pantry right now.

The way it's set up on here... pretty damn funny. It's a well executed troll for those with confirmation bias.

#10 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-02 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Great! What faith? Quote scripture.
Christian Identity doesn't count.
#4 | Posted by kanrei

Hobby Lobby didn't have to quote scripture.
Which is good for them because it would have been impossible.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hobby Lobby didn't have to quote scripture.
#11 | Posted by snoofy

That's the thing that fascinates me about the HL case and a lot of modern Christian Conservative values. They say "We live by Christian principles", but it's really hard to pin them down exactly where in the Bible their views can be found. It seems they just make it up as they go along to reinforce their already held prejudice.

#12 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-07-02 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"They say "We live by Christian principles", but it's really hard to pin them down exactly where in the Bible their views can be found. It seems they just make it up as they go along to reinforce their already held prejudice."

Exactly!! I was lamenting on this originally when the HL case was decided. HL had no obligation to substantiate what, exactly, is their religious belief. All they had to do was express a personal belief, call it a religious belief, and that was enough.

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-02 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

- It seems they just make it up as they go along to reinforce their already held prejudice.

Jesus condemned the religious hypocrites of his day saying that their, "traditions made void the word of God."

And the HL people are deeply steeped in obnoxious faux-Christian traditions.

www.motherjones.com

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#14

Funny, just a few moments ago you were defending Clinton for the same thing. I guess unproven allegations are only acceptable if it helps your cause.

#15 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-02 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

-the same thing

You have a vivid imagination.

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 02:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"-the same thing
You have a vivid imagination."

You do of course realize that it is all documented and the account of both are available right?

Typically imagination is dealing with something that is not real. in this instance both people have had real people make the accusations of similar activities against them and that much is indisputable. It is just sad that you would defend one because you like his politics while attacking the other because you done.

#17 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-07-02 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

50 years ago, Mr. Bessinger used a similar argument as Hobby Lobby... under the 1st Amendment.

No, Hobby Lobby's claim was under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that is broader than the First Amendment and did not exist 50 years ago.

#18 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-02 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Going to vote for Paul, no doubt.
#1 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2014-07-02 12:57 PM | FLAG:

Well, the article states this dude died earlier this year and we all know what party the deceased usually vote for...

#19 | Posted by bartimus at 2014-07-02 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

#19 | Posted by bartimus

Since you "know" this, you'll easily be able to point us to a link to support your claim?

#20 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-07-02 03:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

- indisputable.

by SALAMANDAGATOR

Those two words just go together, don't they?

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2014-07-02 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

50 years ago, Mr. Bessinger used a similar argument as Hobby Lobby... under the 1st Amendment.

No, Hobby Lobby's claim was under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that is broader than the First Amendment and did not exist 50 years ago.
#18 | Posted by et_al

Oh, good thing we opened that can of worms again.
I think being born with black skin is the Mark of Cain, what do I win?
Hopefully it's the right to refuse service to blacks because of my religious beliefs.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 04:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Hopefully it's the right to refuse service to blacks because of my religious beliefs."

I usually don't comment threads about constitutional issues but I suspect that the SC ruled they way they did because it impacted health coverage, which is not a violation of civil rights.

religious beliefs can only go so far....certainly not past the point of discriminating on the basis of race.

I disagree with the HL decision due to the slippery slope of allowing all sorts of religious objections to things....but I'm not worried about it crossing over into protected classes, civil rights, etc.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2014-07-02 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your guess is that if the Civil Rights Act specified gender, Hobby Lobby would have lost?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-07-02 05:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your guess is that if the Civil Rights Act specified gender, Hobby Lobby would have lost?

#24 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Um, no.

Also, it is patently absurd to equate this story with the Hobby Lobby thing.

If Hobby Lobby were trying to prevent women from coming into their store on religious grounds, then you'd have an apt comparison.

The Hobby Lobby case is SO vastly different - I wonder why you even bothered bringing it up.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-07-02 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wonder why you even bothered bringing it up.

Because Justice Ginberg raised the specter in her dissent and he hasn't read Justice Alito's direct response? That or doesn't understand the test applied?

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2014-07-02 06:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#20 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2014-07-02 03:18 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

A bit sensitive today, are we?

#27 | Posted by bartimus at 2014-07-02 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Christians are so funny.

Wasn't Jesus Black? Or at least Brown?

So this guy would refuse to serve Jesus. (Unless it was to go.)

#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-02 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

A bit sensitive today, are we?

#27 | Posted by bartimus

That's not an answer. You claimed to know something, I asked how you know this, what's so difficult about that?

#29 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-07-02 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

You know, some religions believe it is a sin to participate in usury. Our banking and monetary system runs on usury.

Some religions believe it is a sin to pay taxes.

#30 | Posted by kudzu at 2014-07-03 08:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

He's not serving anyone donnerboy, he's dead

#31 | Posted by kersh at 2014-07-03 08:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is a 1968 case

But it provides an indication of the can of worms Alito and the other four have opened.

#32 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-03 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

He's an idiot.

But Jay-Z banned Whites from his parties and the POTUS loves him!

#33 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-03 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know Nutcase,

The Hobby Lobby case was pretty narrow. And if this case made it to the court today, it wouldn't have a chance..

#34 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-03 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

That guy was such a hardcore racist that his views cost him 98% of his business, and he didn't give a crap. He's also dead and his kids have been successfully rehabbing the business for 4 years now.

What happened to the backpage thread on this? It already had plenty of comments.

#35 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 09:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

[...] He took black people's money. Black people could get service. Sadly, he served them where white people couldn't see them. Let that sink in for a moment. This guys BBQ & sauce is/was so good, black people were willing to give their money to a guy who thought they were sub-human.

#36 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

But Jay-Z banned Whites from his parties and the POTUS loves him!

#2 | Posted by boaz

Provide a link to that or else I'm going to assume you got it from some right wing nutjob lie site.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-03 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

you got it from some right wing nutjob lie site.
#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Or else he just made it up.

#38 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2014-07-03 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rand Paul said he thinks that man should be able to keep black people out of his restaurant even without the religious excuse.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-03 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

I was just reading an article the other day that mentioned that white supremicists gangs in prisons have their own idiotic religion (fake viking kind of vibe to it) and the prison system has accomodate their beliefs.

If someone who adheres to a racist religion "sincerely holds" the belief that not hiring or not allowing a certain race into his store/restaurant is a religious duty, would that be OK now?

#40 | Posted by sully at 2014-07-03 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:


Provide a link to that or else I'm going to assume you got it from some right wing nutjob lie site.
#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-07-03 10:09 AMFlag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

you got it from some right wing nutjob lie site.
#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly
Or else he just made it up.
#7 | Posted by SomebodyElse

I have no reason to lie..

economiccollapsenews.com

www.google.com

#41 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-03 10:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Rand Paul said he thinks that man should be able to keep black people out of his restaurant even without the religious excuse.

#8 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-07-03 10:14 AM | FLAG:

When you support consensualism it gives people the power to do things society won't find agreeable. That exact same freedom of choice is also why Bessinger lost 98% of his business. His archaic, evil ideas were rightfully discriminated against by society at large. That collapse happened purely from public pressure, no law required.

#42 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Or else he just made it up.

#7 | POSTED BY SOMEBODYELSE AT 2014-07-03 10:14 AM | FLAG:

It made entertainment news. The catch is that it wasn't Jay-Z's security. It was security hired by the club, working the VIP area entrance, not the front door. That security was accused of discriminating against white people trying to get into the VIP area, but nothing ever came from it.

Only slightly more interesting would be the 5% Nation necklace he has been wearing on occasion. It's essentially a Nation of Islam splinter group that holds the religious belief black people have the holy spirit and white people are the devil.

#43 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks Sitzkrieg..

#45 | Posted by boaz at 2014-07-03 10:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks Sitzkrieg..

#14 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2014-07-03 10:58 AM | FLAG:

All that crap came up during what'shisnames racism scandal with that weird chick with the face shield.

The real scandal about Jay-Z is making records talking about how he's some subversive element against "the system", when he's really a corporate shill that used eminent domain to displace poor people and build a shiny new stadium for his team.

#46 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obviously this case is going nowhere. But the opportunity to sue based on a false religious belief is unbounded. It can be a make work project for unemployed Lawyers forever.

#47 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-07-03 11:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

"That collapse happened purely from public pressure, no law required."

Having lived in Mississippi before the Civil Rights Acts were passed I witnessed what black people dealt with. They went to the back door of restaurants and ate in the back yard. That would not have changed without the force of law forcing owners of restaurants to serve everyone in the dining room.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-03 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

Having lived in Mississippi before the Civil Rights Acts were passed...

#17 | POSTED BY DANNI

You mean before the Civil War passed...don't you.

#49 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2014-07-03 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

Having lived in Mississippi before the Civil Rights Acts were passed

#17 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-07-03 11:20 AM | FLAG:

We're 50 years past 1964, thankfully. Society has changed significantly in that time. His business collapse happened only 14 years ago. Public opinion, driven directly by his racist policies, took away 98% of his business. That's consensualism in a nutshell. He's a ----, people did not consent to do business with him. His family took over, they're much nicer, people choose to do business with them. Yay consenualism!

#50 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

That collapse happened purely from public pressure, no law required.

The free market doesn't solve all problems involving bigoted business owners. That only can work when there are plenty of businesses to choose from in an area.

People who think no law is required to prevent racist businesses from discriminating should give some thought to these scenarios:

1. There's only one gas station along a desert road for many, many miles. A black family crossing the country is running out of gas as they come up to it. The station refuses to sell to blacks.

2. There's only one 24-hour pharmacy in a town. A Jewish family has a child suffering a severe asthma attack at 2 a.m. and they need an emergency inhaler. The pharmacy refuses to sell to Jews.

Do you really want to live in a country where that would be legal?

#51 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-03 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

and just to throw it out there...

How eccentrically racist was Maurice? Maurice Bessinger dressed in an all white suit, and rode around on a solid white stallion, and put out signs that said "the law says we have to serve n------, but their money goes to the Ku Klux Klan." It literally said that (still had black customers somehow). He was the Evil Colonel Sanders of South Carolina BBQ. Good riddance. Not a cartoon, that was a real guy.

#52 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

If a restaurant owner in Mississippi before the Civil Rights act had voluntarily integrated his/her restaurant he/she would have been shunned by the community, probably would have had bricks thrown throught their windows and possible have faced violent confrontations with other whites. Everyone in Mississippi back then wasn't necessarily racists but the racists made life too dangerous for them to object to racist practices even if they felt they were wrong. With the passage of federal laws to force integration it allowed those people to end racist practices that many of them didn't believe in anyway, but because of the law they weren't held accountable by the violent racists. Without those laws it would have taken many more decades to arrive at the place in race relations that we are at today and I'm not so sure we'd ever really have arrived where we are today. I remember George Wallace saying "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and he meant it and the majority of the white population in the Southern states agreed with him at the time.

#53 | Posted by danni at 2014-07-03 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

The free market doesn't solve all problems involving bigoted business owners.

#51 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-07-03 11:58 AM | FLAG:

Both your examples look like emergency situations, where obviously you should get into trouble for not helping them. Got another more practical one?

#54 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

This case was in 1968 and he lost.

The author thinks this is the same as the Hobby Lobby case but he is factually incorrect.

The hobby lobby decision was not a first amendment case as he states.

It was a case where the president violated a federal law passed by democrats.

The author states that
50 years ago, Mr. Bessinger used a similar argument as Hobby Lobby to say that despite laws outlawing segregation, his religious beliefs trumped federal law under the 1st Amendment.

Hobby lobby never said the first amendment trumped federal law.
They said federal law trumped a rule Obama made.

#55 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-03 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks for showing us what the democrat party was up to back in 1968.

This guy was a democrat.

The democrat party was busy running the KKK they created and trying to stop GOP lead civil rights act.

#56 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-07-03 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#53 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2014-07-03 12:14 PM | FLAG:

We're not on the same page even though we have the same endgame.

There's an author named Basil Lidell Hart. He's a very well renowned strategist. His theory of conflict is called the "indirect approach". The longest way around is the shortest. It has an excellent historical track record. This book should be required reading for politicians.

www.amazon.com

Consider the laws passed to be phase 1 of what is necessarily a 2 phase maneuver. Phase 1 created a society that severely punishes racism through market forces. Phase 2 means giving racists a means to easily identify themselves and be crushed by the forces created in phase 1.

or we can just wait for them all to die, but it's going to be awhile.

#57 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Both your examples look like emergency situations, where obviously you should get into trouble for not helping them.

The first example would only be an emergency if the black family wasn't allowed to buy gas.

There are plenty more examples in business where bigotry would cause serious damage to the customers being denied. You need to let go of the idea the free market is all that's needed to counter bigoted businesses.

#58 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-03 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

The democrat party was busy running the KKK they created and trying to stop GOP lead civil rights act.

And then the Civil Rights Act passed, and all those southern Democrats who were enraged by it switched parties, taking over the GOP and pushing out the liberal Republicans who helped LBJ pass that legislation.

#59 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-03 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 5

It's a shame the guy is dead. I admire his business model.

I'd eat at an awesome restaurant run by a racist black dude too. That's the kind of added value I can appreciate.

#60 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-07-03 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Do you really want to live in a country where that would be legal?

#51 | Posted by rcade

Sadly, there are still a lot of Americans who actually long for those days.

#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-03 02:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

And then the Civil Rights Act passed, and all those southern Democrats who were enraged by it switched parties, taking over the GOP and pushing out the liberal Republicans who helped LBJ pass that legislation.

#59 | Posted by rcade

I'm sure you can prove that. give it a try.

#62 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-07-03 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

The man is a lying sackocrap.

Jesus saw no problem eating with tax collectors and prostitutes.

How then can we pretend he'd have a problem providing food to people who we can be sure had no choice of their statues least as far as skin color is concerned?

#63 | Posted by Tor at 2014-07-03 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

The first example would only be an emergency if the black family wasn't allowed to buy gas.
There are plenty more examples in business where bigotry would cause serious damage to the customers being denied.

#58 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-07-03 01:24 PM | FLAG:

So both of your examples create or exacerbate an emergency situation, and you won't give one where it does not. I agree your examples should be illegal behavior. I'm not from the extreme end of my party, I actually agree with laws against racial discrimination, I just think we need to recognize the power of the market and how to effectively use both to achieve the end game. I would suggest to you the same book I suggested to Danni. It is worth reading.

#64 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 03:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure you can prove that. give it a try.

#62 | Posted by Sniper

I am sure you can't disprove it...go for it.

While you are busy googling googling googling to find some extreme website to support YOUR version of Reality don't forget to google the "Southern Strategy" and "Southern Democrats".

#65 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-07-03 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure you can prove that.

You're asking me to prove something that's an extremely well-known part of U.S. political history. I learned it in high school, and I watched it reach its conclusion as all the conservative Texas Democrats became conservative Texas Republicans by the '80s.

Does the term "Solid South" mean anything to you?

Read about it here:

en.wikipedia.org

"The term Solid South describes the electoral support of the Southern United States for Democratic Party candidates from 1877 (the end of Reconstruction) to 1964 (the year of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). ...

"Beginning in the 1960s, Southern support for the Democratic Party started to decline given its national leaders' support of the civil rights movement, including school integration. The Republican Party began to make new gains in the South, building on other cultural conflicts as well."

#66 | Posted by rcade at 2014-07-03 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

BOAZ, SITZKRIEG, et al : The KKK and the 5% Nation are a couple of the myriad of groups created by the illuminati* ~ actually all three groups are creations - to foster social & racial war & upheaval. The 5% Nation emblem is old pagan symbol used in secret societies. Beyonce used a lot of illuminati imagery in her Superbowl show; it was clear she was sending a message she possesses special knowledge. Same with Madonna & the Kabala / illuminati at her half-time show (though M has not been guilty of / associated with racism).

*illuminati used here as a generic term to be inclusive of all such societies

#67 | Posted by kenx at 2014-07-03 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Illuminati. Silly conspiracy, but great card game.(game)

#68 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 09:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

link to the card game

#69 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-07-03 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Card game looks great. As stated, i was using a generic term and not referring to the Bavarian Ill., which actually had positive social goals & was no doubt composed of enlightened individuals (or so their "cover story" purports).

my syntax of a phrase (above) was all messed up; should've read "racial war & social upheaval": that which some secret societies are dedicated to propagate. Beyonce & Jay-Z are a couple of talented and super-wealthy kids who are PLAYING. (i think) They are no more illuminati than you or me, or are very, very low level (5% Nation) nouveau-rich.

i have read Madonna is (& Marilyn Monroe was) an illuminati sex slave. i find that hard to believe, even tho MM was passed around by a lot of powerful men. i like M and adore MM. If the latter was a hypnotized automaton, she wouldn't have naively expected President Kennedy to divorce Jackie & marry her, and made waves for him, which was apparently dangerous for her. (yeah, i'm in the MM was murdered camp).

#70 | Posted by kenx at 2014-07-03 10:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Picking on an old man won't change his mind bout he runs his business.
Maybe he just doesn't like to see their underwear butts poking out.

#71 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-07-03 11:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

What!? Picking on an old *dead* man! Yeah, Him and Hitler. They should be took to court.

#72 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-07-03 11:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

racism, bigotry, and refusing to serve people based on who they are is wrong.

Everything else doesn't matter.

Words have meaning:
Hate - feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).
Racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Bigotry - bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

#73 | Posted by pragmatous at 2014-07-04 01:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

The democrat party was busy running the KKK they created and trying to stop GOP lead civil rights act.

#56 | Posted by tmaster

I guess righties really don't know anything Rush Limbaugh never told them. The Civil Rights Act drew more Democratic support in the HOUSE and SENATE from Democrats than it did from the GOP.
House
The original House version:

Southern Democrats: (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: (0–100%)

Northern Democrats: (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: (85–15%)

Senate
Southern Democrats: (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

It caused segregationist Strom Thurmond to jump to the GOP.

JFK intro'd the Bill, LBJ pushed for it. Both solid GOPpers, right?

What amazing fantasies will you spout next, TMaster, Nixon won the VN war and Dubya was a Vietnam-era fighter ace?

#74 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-07-04 09:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

The lib desperation is becoming absurd.

#75 | Posted by justanoversight at 2014-07-04 11:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort