Right Wing nutjobs show their asses at another townhall (Again).

President Senate House

1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255
1969 91st R D - 57 D - 243
1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247
1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295
1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259
1961 87th D D - 64 D - 263


and I did mention the civil rights act... which was 64.


Thanks for playing.

I was getting a refresher on wiki.

The Democratic Party evolved from Anti-Federalist factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton in the early 1790s. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized these factions into the Democratic-Republican Party. The party favored states' rights and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank and wealthy, moneyed interests. The Democratic-Republican Party ascended to power in the election of 1800. After the War of 1812, the party's chief rival, the Federalist Party disbanded. Democratic-Republicans split over the choice of a successor to President James Monroe, and the party faction that supported many of the old Jeffersonian principles, led by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, became the Democratic Party. Along with the Whig Party, the Democratic Party was the chief party in the United States until the Civil War. The Whigs were a commercial party, and usually less popular, if better financed. The Whigs divided over the slavery issue after the Mexican–American War and faded away. In the 1850s, under the stress of the Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, anti-slavery Democrats left the party. Joining with former members of existing or dwindling parties, the Republican Party emerged.

Click to expand...

And can we at least all agree on the fact that most white rich males back in the day did not really care about black people? Regardless of parties.

I don't care about you.

I care about the constitution.




Democrats.

what... huh? said:

President Senate House

1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255
1969 91st R D - 57 D - 243
1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247
1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295
1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259
1961 87th D D - 64 D - 263


and I did mention the civil rights act... which was 64.


Thanks for playing.

Click to expand...

If my memory serves me correctly I believe that a democratic president that was elected in 1960 started the civil rights movement and it was finalized by another democratic president in 1964.

If my memory serves me correctly I believe that a democratic president that was elected in 1960 started the civil rights movement and it was finalized by another democratic president in 1964.

Click to expand...

I am a dem but cannot give credit to any politician. The people that stood up and took a beating are the ones that deserve the credit for the civil rights movement. They basically forced to government to take notice of their plight and were not taking no for an answer.

hanimmal said:

I am a dem but cannot give credit to any politician. The people that stood up and took a beating are the ones that deserve the credit for the civil rights movement. They basically forced to government to take notice of their plight and were not taking no for an answer.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree.

The civil rights movement took place outside of government.


The movement was to demand rights FROM government.


While they were the ruling power... they were DRAGGED kicking and screaming to acknowledge the rights of blacks. The people were revolting... and the debate was intense. There was fierce opposition to it from the Democrats. Yes they passed it... and deserve credit for it. Again, only 60% of democrats voted for it, and caused a HUGE split in the party.

The murders, the horrible discrimination for which the bill was passed to prevent was perpetrated by the democrats.


You STILL have Byrd in the senate.

James Earl Ray was a democrat.

what... huh? said:

I don't care about you.

I care about the constitution.

Democrats.

Click to expand...

Yeah all those guys left the democratic party after the civil right act. Why do you think LBJ(Democrat) said "We have lost the south for a generation" after signing the 1964 civil right act. The south abandon the democratic party. The republicans gladly accepted them and courted them, now there the majority of the party. Look at the the last the election, what states did John McCain win?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to natrone23 again.

Click to expand...

Damn good post.

You presume they became republican. They became largely disenfranchised and adopted the "this country is going to shit" anti-government people.

They lost the South, so Republicans sucked up the vacuum... they did not "become" republicans. They felt betrayed by their party for consorting with the ENEMY... who were the republicans. They did not join the party they felt THEIR party had become complicit to.

Now... your pro militia, small government, pro gun racists (a very small segment of society) now find the republican party more appealing... but the nation has in overwhelming proportion progressed from these xenophobic caveman ideologies. You act as if the division is as bad as it was throughout history, and I argue that we as a people have evolved in our understanding.

what... huh? said:

The civil rights movement took place outside of government.


The movement was to demand rights FROM government.


While they were the ruling power... they were DRAGGED kicking and screaming to acknowledge the rights of blacks. The people were revolting... and the debate was intense. There was fierce opposition to it from the Democrats. Yes they passed it... and deserve credit for it. Again, only 60% of democrats voted for it, and caused a HUGE split in the party.
.

Click to expand...

It was a huge split, the southern democrats left and went to the republicians.

Look at who voted against the bill

The original 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%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
• Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

what... huh? said:

Now... your pro militia, small government, pro gun racists (a very small segment of society) now find the republican party more appealing... but the nation has in overwhelming proportion progressed from these xenophobic caveman ideologies. You act as if the division is as bad as it was throughout history, and I argue that we as a people have evolved in our understanding.

Click to expand...

There are pro-gun, pro-militia, small government people who are not racists.

I am one of them.

The Constitution is what I hold dear. Larger government never grants more freedoms...they guarentee less. Doesn't matter what country you talk about...the larger the government's reach...the less freedoms the citizens enjoyed.

Guns are for more than killing game and scaring off bad people...they are also for when the government becomes too much of an tyranny. Which eventually will happen to every governement, in every country, on every continent. Our forefather's knew this basic truth and said as much in the Constitution.

You keep saying they left and became republicans... you have yet to demonstrate that at all.


Yes... and that totals 60% of democrats, and 80% of the republicans.


I am not suggesting that there were no racist republicans. I am saying that the republicans were "the party of Lincoln" and historically have opposed racism, and supported equality.


Look at affirmative action. It is, inherently racist. It is not egalitarian... it presumes that minorities need help to achieve. It is fundamentally bigoted. How you do not see this is beyond me.

Anjinsan said:

There are pro-gun, pro-militia, small government people who are not racists.

I am one of them.

Click to expand...

So am I.


Because our purpose for those beliefs is fundamentally different than the racists. My point was to demonstrate that they see a common goal, for different reasons. Sorry for the poor wording.

I am not, however, a republican.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to what... huh? again.

Click to expand...

Very good post too,

But too bad that evolution has moved against gay rights, evolution, and abortion. And although I agree it is much smaller than anytime in our history, I don't agree that it can be considered 'very small' I just think that it is less of a degree in hate than it once was.

Anjinsan said:

There are pro-gun, pro-militia, small government people who are not racists.

I am one of them.

The Constitution is what I hold dear. Larger government never grants more freedoms...they guarentee less. Doesn't matter what country you talk about...the larger the government's reach...the less freedoms the citizens enjoyed.

Guns are for more than killing game and scaring off bad people...they are also for when the government becomes too much of an tyranny. Which eventually will happen to every governement, in every country, on every continent. Our forefather's knew this basic truth and said as much in the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Yeah I love guns too man, relax nobody is gunna take are guns.

Debatable.

Gays don't want equal rights. They want special rights.


As far as I am concerned, government has no business in marriage to begin with.

Gays don't want equal rights. They want special rights.


As far as I am concerned, government has no business in marriage to begin with.

Click to expand...

I disagree, they want to have the same benefits under the law as strait couples. How do you think that is special rights? I am sure you didn't just toss that out there. Don't worry about setting me up to ask the question that you already put thoughts into, I would rather to just go for it and debate as we go.


I don't believe in marriage as it is, but society doesn't allow for couples to really be joined without it. The government should stay completely out of it and just allow people to set up partnerships with who the fuck ever they want to. It shouldn't even be regulated to people that have sex with each other.

If two (hell even more) people want to join up in a partnership and take responsibility for each other under the eyes of the law it should be allowed and contracted through the government. It should have nothing to do with a church ceremony. If people want to get that they should just get that paper from the government and find someone to do the ceremony. Hell and if they want the ceremony and not have to be licensed that should be allowed too.

They have EQUAL protection. I can't marry a guy either.

They can vote, they cannot be discriminated against in the workplace, etc etc. They have civil unions... it is an issue of making special exception with regards to something that does not apply to them. It is like me insisting on maternity leave. It is not sexist, it is non-applicable.

The "benefits" of marriage are justified because of the product of fruitful union... and again... I think they need to pull their noses out all together.

For the record, as marriage laws exist, I am for gay marriage on principal, but not because of gays. It is exclusionary of hermaphrodites to incorporate "man and woman" specific language. I am honestly surprised that nobody has used this argument. EQUAL protection. Hermaphrodites cannot marry anyone... and while it sounds laughable, it is a minority which is discriminated against by using sex specific language.

Marriage should go back to the church, and the REST of society should get civil unions granting authority for medical decisions etc.

my .02