The Avenger Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Why did they fight against the '64 Civil Rights Act? Why did they excoriate Sen leader Lott for attending a birthday party for Strom Thurmond? Why did they go after Thomas Jefferson? 793956[/snapback] There's a little thing we like to call TIME that made all the difference in these examples: Thomas Jefferson - owned slaves, but this was legal when he lived before 1826. Not saying slavery was right, but those were the times. What most people have a problem with is the illigetimate offspring Jefferson is now known to have had - when you have sex with "property" is it really consensual? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - debate on this took place in 1964 . You may recall that the South was largely segregated and this was a way of life. Again, not saying it was right, it was just the way it was (and if you were a southern politician you had to stand for segregation if you were to have a shot at re-election). 93% of southern Democrats (80 of 87) voted against the legislation, but 100% of southern Repulicans (10 of 10) voted against it as well . Still think voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on party affiliation? Looks like it was based on geography to me. Fast forward to 2002 and you get Trent Lott saying that if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948 (he ran on a platform of segregation) "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" - an endorsement of that platform? Lott also voted against renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act and voted against the MLK holiday. I don't know about you, but I think someone like Lott in 2002 should be held to a different standard than Thomas Jeffrson prior to 1826 and southern politicians in 1964 when it comes issues of race, but if you think they're all equal, rock on with your bad self.
The Avenger Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 What about George Dubya and the Texas Rangers? 794114[/snapback] When you own the team it doesn't count.
keepthefaith Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 ...says the guy with the rotation of boobs avatars. or that the game was against Minnesota. 793944[/snapback] Hey, those are damn nice avatars.
keepthefaith Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 What does any of this have to do with the Bills beating the Vikings? 793793[/snapback] Nothing, but don't mess up a great thread.
stuckincincy Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 here's a little thing we like to call TIME that made all the difference in these examples: Thomas Jefferson - owned slaves, but this was legal when he lived before 1826. Not saying slavery was right, but those were the times. What most people have a problem with is the illigetimate offspring Jefferson is now known to have had - when you have sex with "property" is it really consensual? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 - debate on this took place in 1964 . You may recall that the South was largely segregated and this was a way of life. Again, not saying it was right, it was just the way it was (and if you were a southern politician you had to stand for segregation if you were to have a shot at re-election). 93% of southern Democrats (80 of 87) voted against the legislation, but 100% of southern Repulicans (10 of 10) voted against it as well . Still think voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was based on party affiliation? Looks like it was based on geography to me. Fast forward to 2002 and you get Trent Lott saying that if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948 (he ran on a platform of segregation) "we Nouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" - an endorsement of that platform? Lott also voted against renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act and voted against the MLK holiday. I don't know about you, but I think someone like Lott in 2002 should be held to a different standard than Thomas Jeffrson prior to 1826 and southern politicians in 1964 when it comes issues of race, but if you think they're all equal, rock on with your bad self. 794126[/snapback] Any idea why the Clinton defenders brought up Jefferson? - like you say, a different era. Parse the vote on the 1964 bill if you like. Those legislators acted with the tacit approval of all Democrats...think the non-southern ones had the conjones to defy that power bloc? They nodded - so much for their ethics. They didn't exactly call for their comrades to step down when the Faubus's, the Maddox's, the Wallace' s did their thing...did they? Those southern Republicans get no praise from me. Not to mention Robert Kennedy's survellience of MLK... Your "but if you think it's all equal, rock on with your bad self" comment is uncalled for, Avenger. We have always been on amicable terms, be it in agreement or disagreement...that should continue.
The Avenger Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Any idea why the Clinton defenders brought up Jefferson? - like you say, a different era. Parse the vote on the 1964 bill if you like. Those legislators acted with the tacit approval of all Democrats..think the non-southern ones had the conjones to defy that power bloc? They nodded - so much for their ethics. They didn't exactly call for their comrades to step down when the Faubus's, the Maddox's, the Wallace' s did their thing...did they? Not to mention Robert Kennedy's survellience of MLK... Your "but if you think it's all equal, rock on with your bad self" comment is uncalled for, Avenger. We have always been on amicable terms, be it in agreement or disagreement...that should continue. 794234[/snapback] I'll start by saying I'm sorry if you took offense at my "rock on" comment - it was not intended. I'll also disagree that there was no difference between northerns and southern Democrats on the 1964 vote - you couldn't be more wrong. Here's how the vote broke down (1st number is FOR the 1964 Act, 2nd number is AGAINST): House Version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) Senate Version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) This CLEARLY shows this wasn't a party vote, but a geography vote. Your painting ALL Democrats as anti-civil rights legislation just doesn't hold up. Nearly ALL SOUTHERNERS rejected civil rights legislation which just goes to prove my point that any politician in the south in 1964 had to support segregation in order to keep their seats (I'd be curious to know how the 8 Dems who voted for the Act fared in their next election, but I don't have the time right now). Nearly ALL Northern Democrats supported the legislation - so saying, "Those legislators acted with the tacit approval of all Democrats..think the non-southern ones had the conjones to defy that power bloc? They nodded - so much for their ethics" just doesn't wash. Were there segregationists/racists in the Democratic party in 1964 - you bet. But there were also Republicans. Were these folks right for being segregationist/racists? No - time has shown that it was wrong. Was it an unfortunate political reality in 1964? Yes.
stuckincincy Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 I'll start by saying I'm sorry if you took offense at my "rock on" comment - it was not intended. I'll also disagree that there was no difference between northerns and southern Democrats on the 1964 vote - you couldn't be more wrong. Here's how the vote broke down (1st number is FOR the 1964 Act, 2nd number is AGAINST): House Version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) Senate Version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) This CLEARLY shows this wasn't a party vote, but a geography vote. Your painting ALL Democrats as anti-civil rights legislation just doesn't hold up. Nearly ALL SOUTHERNERS rejected civil rights legislation which just goes to prove my point that any politician in the south in 1964 had to support segregation in order to keep their seats (I'd be curious to know how the 8 Dems who voted for the Act fared in their next election, but I don't have the time right now). Nearly ALL Northern Democrats supported the legislation - so saying, "Those legislators acted with the tacit approval of all Democrats..think the non-southern ones had the conjones to defy that power bloc? They nodded - so much for their ethics" just doesn't wash. Were there segregationists/racists in the Democratic party in 1964 - you bet. But there were also Republicans. Were these folks right for being segregationist/racists? No - time has shown that it was wrong. Was it an unfortunate political reality in 1964? Yes. 794278[/snapback]
Mikie2times Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 The economy in the rest of the US has been Good. Not NY...dahhhhhhhhh 793744[/snapback] LOL- Been to Michigan or Ohio recently? It's booming baby!!
stuckincincy Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 I'll start by saying I'm sorry if you took offense at my "rock on" comment - it was not intended. I'll also disagree that there was no difference between northerns and southern Democrats on the 1964 vote - you couldn't be more wrong. Here's how the vote broke down (1st number is FOR the 1964 Act, 2nd number is AGAINST): House Version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) Senate Version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) This CLEARLY shows this wasn't a party vote, but a geography vote. Your painting ALL Democrats as anti-civil rights legislation just doesn't hold up. Nearly ALL SOUTHERNERS rejected civil rights legislation which just goes to prove my point that any politician in the south in 1964 had to support segregation in order to keep their seats (I'd be curious to know how the 8 Dems who voted for the Act fared in their next election, but I don't have the time right now). Nearly ALL Northern Democrats supported the legislation - so saying, "Those legislators acted with the tacit approval of all Democrats..think the non-southern ones had the conjones to defy that power bloc? They nodded - so much for their ethics" just doesn't wash. Were there segregationists/racists in the Democratic party in 1964 - you bet. But there were also Republicans. Were these folks right for being segregationist/racists? No - time has shown that it was wrong. Was it an unfortunate political reality in 1964? Yes. 794278[/snapback] Consider the possibility, noting the number of Republicans for the Act, having "smelled the coffee", the northern Dems threw their hat in. A congressional rat abandonding the ship for personal purpose is not at all uncommon. If you propose to defend the Democratic Party's support of civil rights before most of the major enabling legislation got passed, well, that's a reach...
The Avenger Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Consider the possibility, noting the number of Republicans for the Act, having "smelled the coffee", the northern Dems threw their hat in. A congressional rat abandonding the ship for personal purpose is not at all uncommon. If you propose to defend the Democratic Party's support of civil rights before most of the major enabling legislation got passed, well, that's a reach... 794358[/snapback] I'm NOT defending the Dems (at least the southern Dems) support (or more accurately, lack thereof) of civil rights - it was poor. You're telling me that 198 Democratic lawmakers voted FOR the act because they saw their Republican bretheren support it and "smelled the coffee"? Fat chance. If the Republicans were that damn persuasive why did 40 Republican lawmakers vote AGAINST the Act? What I AM pointing out is that your contention that Dems, as a whole, voted against the Act is false - that's simply not supported by the facts. 94% of northern Dem representitives voted FOR the act, as did 98% of northern Dem senators. Your initial premise, that the southern Dems who voted against the Act did so with the approval of ALL Dems is wrong. Your premise that all Dems cast ethics aside and didn't have the cojones to defy that block is also flat out wrong. The reality is that almost ALL congressmen (and 100% of Republicans) voted against the Act demonstrating that that was the political reality of the time. It also shows that arcane parlimentary rules on cloture allow a small minority of lawmakers to filibuster legislation that has broad support - that's what we saw with the filibuster by the Dixiecrats. You're not a big fan of the Democrats - we get it. All I'm saying is that if you're going to bash them you need to find a better reason than to say that the southern Democrats in 1964 had a poor civil rights record so the WHOLE PARTY had (or still has today) a poor record on civil rights - that's just not supported by the facts.
MDyl7993 Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Funny I dont remember seeing Hitlery at the game.Oh wait, that's because Bill was there. 793676[/snapback] That's because she was with women
tennesseeboy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 What about that Webb guy, tenny? What's your opinion on freedom of speech? Ever read Voltaire's notable comment on the subject? Or is that passe, a mere quaintness from the past? 793916[/snapback] Being a fellow Vietnam combat veteran ( he wond the Navy Cross and a host of other combat medals) I am predisposed to liking Webb. Serving in combat with people of other races and nationalities tends to water down prejudices, so I doubt you will find him engaging in racially derogative remarks like old Macaca. I agree with free speech and am glad Allen is telling it like he is...so people can vote accordingly. Maybe he doesn't mean what he says and is pandering to the racist vote!
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Being a fellow Vietnam combat veteran ( he wond the Navy Cross and a host of other combat medals) I am predisposed to liking Webb. Serving in combat with people of other races and nationalities tends to water down prejudices, so I doubt you will find him engaging in racially derogative remarks like old Macaca. I agree with free speech and am glad Allen is telling it like he is...so people can vote accordingly. Maybe he doesn't mean what he says and is pandering to the racist vote! 794778[/snapback] You know, tenny, those bon mots you often drop in the middle of a thread seem to end up with me getting into an imbroglio...
tennesseeboy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 ME? It was erynthered who turned this into a rant against a political party. I would just as soon be talking about the bills and leave politics to the nazi board. How are they doing on the new Republican "Leave No Child's Behind" legislation, by the way?
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 ME? It was erynthered who turned this into a rant against a political party. I would just as soon be talking about the bills and leave politics to the nazi board. How are they doing on the new Republican "Leave No Child's Behind" legislation, by the way? 794865[/snapback] Will Teddy's imprint be all over it this time, too?
erynthered Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 ME? It was erynthered who turned this into a rant against a political party. I would just as soon be talking about the bills and leave politics to the nazi board. How are they doing on the new Republican "Leave No Child's Behind" legislation, by the way? 794865[/snapback] Pass!! This thread was going to hell before I posted anything. But, as I said in my first post, I can stir the pot "TOO". What is it going on 4 years, Tenny? That you went bad on a bet!! 4 years???
Buftex Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 What is it going on 4 years, Tenny? That you went bad on a bet!! 4 years??? 794924[/snapback] When Tenny lost, we all lost!
tennesseeboy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Pass!! This thread was going to hell before I posted anything. But, as I said in my first post, I can stir the pot "TOO". What is it going on 4 years, Tenny? That you went bad on a bet!! 4 years??? 794924[/snapback] Eryn my friend, I never went bad on the bet. Had the Grouper at Frenchys and invited both you and paul. You both failed to show. However I'll be down there again in February and we can have a grouper or two and toast our late friend. Maybe your Florida Republican friend Tom Foley might want to come too. I'd email him and ask but I understand that email communications with him might get a bit wierd.
erynthered Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 When Tenny lost, we all lost! 794927[/snapback] Yup, you all lost. But now you have a chance. What are you going to do with it? Piss and moan like you usualy do? Or step up to the plate with something new. My guess, is still piss and moan, you're good at it. But, good luck anyway. I mean that, I really do!!
tennesseeboy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Will Teddy's imprint be all over it this time, too? 794893[/snapback] Know how they separate the men from the boys at Republican National HQ? They use crowbars!
Recommended Posts