Indeed. They tend now to be people unable to command respect — not the sort of blind respect some feel the police should be afforded, but genuine respect — from any section of society. Not a good situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Printable View
Indeed. They tend now to be people unable to command respect — not the sort of blind respect some feel the police should be afforded, but genuine respect — from any section of society. Not a good situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Ah the Wiki, first source for gullible, and not very bright, world wide: meanwhile, from an article based on what was written in an old Times magazine: http://biggovernment.com/files/2010/...640619_400.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader – not President Lyndon Johnson – was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.
In the Senate, Dirksen had no trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for passage. On the Democrat side, the Senate leadership did support the bill, while the chief opponents were Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC), Al Gore (D-TN) and Robert Byrd (D-WV). Senator Byrd, whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate,” filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for fourteen straight hours. At a meeting held in his office, Dirksen modified the bill so it could be passed despite Democrat opposition. He strongly condemned the Democrat-led 57-day filibuster: “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
Along with most other political leaders at the time, Johnson, credited Dirksen for getting the bill passed: “The Attorney General said that you were very helpful and did an excellent job… I’ll see that you get proper attention and credit.” At the time, for instance, The Chicago Defender, a renowned African-American newspaper, praised Senator Dirksen for leading passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The struggle for civil rights was not finished, however, as most southern states remained under the control of segregationist Democrat governors, such as George Wallace (D-AL), Orval Faubus (D-AR) and Lester Maddox (D-GA). Full enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not arrive until the Republican political ascendancy in the South during the 1980s.
And how are we supposed to know that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
If you used your real name, and maybe flew a flag by your name we might have a better idea and those who tend to want to nitpick might take that into consideration..
So which language would you feel more comfortable in?
Truth is there just weren't that many Republigoons in office then
House: D 248, R 172
Senate D 67, R 33
Only in a psychotic Bizzarro World could anybody suggest with a straight face that the Rebubligoons "Rammed through" the civil right bill...
Riebe's fantasy based claims pretty much proves the point of this thread, as if there was any doubt.
So you are claiming that the data provided in the Wiki is factually incorrect. And yet, it was compiled from the Congressional voting record. So Bob, post the data that you have which disproves what I posted. If that data is incorrect, and the regional voting pattern is incorrect, then post the correct data for all of us to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Also, please notice that in your post you claimed that the Democrats who opposed the civil rights legislation were "liberal" and the Republicans were "conservative". And yet, by the very Time article that you posted, that silly assertion is not supported... because it is just another of your simple fantasies. George Wallace was a "liberal"? Really?
Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
I offer our friend Bob as Exhibit #1... and rest my case.
Don't blame me I am using the standard of conservatives vs liberals this asinine thread is based on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
I said nothing of the accuracy of your wiki post, I merely stated that going quickly to wiki as a primary source to support a rhetoric is lame at best and 30 seconds of foolish at worst.
You were babbling about the Rep. not pushing through the civil rights bill and the article says you are wrong period.
How many hours did the Dem. filibuster.?
Wasn't Sheets Byrd, the one so lovingly trumped up by liberals for the past forty decades leading the charge?
You are the one that made this moronic statement It is truly, truly amazing how you just make things up, the article makes you look like a fool for making it, and it only took 30 seconds for you to do it, so what is your point here?
Wow, if I have low IQ at least I can blame it on conservatism, in today's world that would qualify for a disease; whereas your reason for being insensate is you were born that way. Too bad you had such misfortune in your genes.
My word, so Times magazine is a bizzarro publication?Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
I think you live in that world, so your voice of it is one of authority.
Try harder next time sonny.
So it's typical for you to just follow along... like a sheep? Party does not (or hasn't always) define political ideology. But to people who run around using the word "RINO" and expect lock-step loyalty and NO QUESTIONS to be asked, maybe it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
But IMO, that's a good thing. It helps create more independents who aren't lemmings and slaves to parties.
Whether it's a Wiki entry or Ned the Janitor, if the data is valid, it is valid. In fact, you're very much like Ned the Janitor. And yet, I still talk to you, don't I? Seldom is your data valid, but you're still entertaining for a chat up. And being that the original source of this data was the Congressional record (and available for review or further dissemination there), why would I spend more than 30 seconds (re)assembling something that you are incapable of truly comprehending anyway?Quote:
I said nothing of the accuracy of your wiki post, I merely stated that going quickly to wiki as a primary source to support a rhetoric is lame at best and 30 seconds of foolish at worst.
What I pointed out was that the vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not at all what you were trying to spin it as: a simpleton's issue of "the good, conservative Republicans vs. the bad, liberal Democrats." In truth, the vote came down to region, NOT party. The Act passed because a large majority of members of BOTH parties in the north supported it, while virtually no members (0 Republicans, by the way) in the south did.Quote:
You were babbling about the Rep. not pushing through the civil rights bill and the article says you are wrong period.
Nice try though.
Apparently that you have great difficulties with basic math.Quote:
You are the one that made this moronic statement It is truly, truly amazing how you just make things up, the article makes you look like a fool for making it, and it only took 30 seconds for you to do it, so what is your point here?
Well Bob, just think... that a man as "insensate" (always a treat to watch a barely literate goof use a $5 word to express a 50 cent thought) as I am can have this level of success, should give hope to those of your ilk. Some day, some way, you might go from that single wide with the wheels still attached to a double wide with a fake rock foundation! Hells yeah! :bounce:Quote:
Wow, if I have low IQ at least I can blame it on conservatism, in today's world that would qualify for a disease; whereas your reason for being insensate is you were born that way. Too bad you had such misfortune in your genes.
Is it your level of success that causes you to reply with such demeanor/our, or do you continually work at it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Not sure what it is, Bobo. I was actually this way before I'd made any money. It's probably that people like you just bring out "the best" in me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Or maybe... Rome fell and I blame people like you for taking us into the Dark Ages. If you believe in past lives or reincarnation, maybe I'm still holding a grudge from something that happened a couple thousand years ago. Tell ya what... let's go to the zoo together, I'll throw you into a lion's cage (like old times) and we'll call it even. What do ya say, old stick? Deal? Sleep on it and get back to me.