• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report: Swastikas found in apartment of Las Vegas cop killers[W:251]

HogWash said:
It wasn't my decision to include Strom as a Republican on the gov-track website. That makes it even better for the Republicans and WORSE for the democrats. I'll give you that racist...thanks for taking him.:lamo
Click to expand...

... You're not really sure what you're arguing against anymore are you? You focused on the fact that the racist had a D next to his name. I just showed you that by the same standard you're judging Democrats, the state of Missouri, Southern Republicans like yourself and generally Southern Conservatives could be considered racists.
 
Hatuey said:
... You're not really sure what you're arguing against anymore are you? You focused on the fact that the racist had a D next to his name. I just showed you that by the same standard you're judging Democrats, the state of Missouri, Southern Republicans like yourself and generally Southern Conservatives could be considered racists.
Click to expand...

No you're the one confused...I took the website claim that Thurmond was a Republican at the time and included him in my numbers. Since he hadn't switched parties yet the democrats can claim one more racist. Thanks for pointing that out...:peace

P.S. the editor/publisher of that website couldn't wait to pass Thurmond off as a racist Republican...so he made him one retroactive to the vote on the bill.:lamo

Next...
 
Last edited:
HogWash said:
No you're the one confused...I took the website claim that Thurmond was a Republican at the time and included him in my numbers. Since he hadn't switched parties yet the democrats can claim one more racist. Thanks for pointing that out...:peace
Click to expand...

Your new found knowledge (which has been around for... well... 50 years) has nothing to do with what I stated.

P.S. the editor/publisher of that website couldn't wait to pass Thurmond off as a racist Republican...so he made him one retroactive to the vote on the bill.:lamo

Next...
Click to expand...

.... Can... you actually read the articles you're discussing? Are they not showing up for you? Here is the Wikipedia article on Thurmond in the 1950s:

Thurmond supported racial segregation throughout much of his career. He wrote the first version of the Southern Manifesto, announcing southern disagreement with and resistance to implementation of school desegregation following the 1954 US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that public school segregation was unconstitutional.[15] Many southern states conducted resistance; in some jurisdictions public schools were closed; in others, whites started private "religious" schools and enrolled their children in those.
Click to expand...

Thurmond in the 1940s.

In response, Thurmond became a candidate for president on the third party ticket of the States' Rights Democratic Party (also known as the Dixiecrats). It split from the national Democrats over the threat of federal intervention in state affairs regarding segregation and Jim Crow.
Click to expand...

... The article consistently states that Thurmond had racist views BEFORE AND AFTER he became a Republican. But this is all beside the point. I think the fact that you clearly missed the implications of the CRA'64 vote say a lot about what your purpose in this thread is. In short:

1. Republicans couldn't have passed the bill in the House without Democrat giving 46 votes in favor of the bill. Meaning, it was Democrats who supported en mass this bill. This is proven by voting records.
2. Democrats only needed 6 votes to pass the house and a bit of persuasion would have eventually ensured that. This is proven by voting records. It discredits your claim that it was the "massive" support of Republicans that did it.
3. Republicans couldn't get the bills passed in either the House or Senate without Democrats as they were from the beginning a minority party. This is proven by the fact that they didn't have the numbers to pass it on their own.
4. Opposition/Support of the bill wasn't based on party lines, it was based on historical differences drawn along the Mason-Dixon line. This is proven by the fact that Republicans and Democrats in the South all voted against the bill.

So in conclusion, you've proven, through your erroneous claims, Democrats the catalysts and numerically superior supporters of this bill. You've proven that Republicans stood against it if they were from the South, same as Democrats. And you've proven that the states with the most interest in maintaining racist laws were Southern.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
.

.... Can... you actually read the articles you're discussing? Are they not showing up for you? Here is the Wikipedia article on Thurmond in the 1950s:
Click to expand...

I think I found your problem...Wikipedia.
ROTFL110x85.gif
 
VanceMack said:
if someone goes to your house when you are having a BBQ and pisses on your front lawn and you stop him and tell him to leave and then later gets caught pissing in the bushes at a child care center and gets charged with public indecency and child abuse are you connected and worthy of guilt by association? I mean after all...there would be a 'tangental' connection...
Click to expand...

Did I say that Bundy was to blame? Or must you rush to the defense of the newest RW hero?
 
Hatuey said:
I'm not sure what the page is supposed to prove though. If you back these numbers, you have to by default accept that it was Democrats who got the CRA'64 passed as they played the same role in CRA'57 as Republicans did in CRA'64.

View attachment 67168009
Click to expand...


Well, obviously it proves that Republicans are better people and that ALL Democrats are racist (to this day. Obama hates himself).
 
rocket88 said:
Did I say that Bundy was to blame? Or must you rush to the defense of the newest RW hero?
Click to expand...
No...you didnt say 'to blame'...you said connected, albeit tangentially. You ignore the fact that he was kicked OUT of there and STILL rush to make the connection. So...by association...you would be just as fairly 'connected'...right?
 
VanceMack said:
No...you didnt say 'to blame'...you said connected, albeit tangentially. You ignore the fact that he was kicked OUT of there and STILL rush to make the connection. So...by association...you would be just as fairly 'connected'...right?
Click to expand...

Oh boo hoo! I said something mean about your hero and now you're going to have a hissy fit.
 
rocket88 said:
Oh boo hoo! I said something mean about your hero and now you're going to have a hissy fit.
Click to expand...
:lamo You got called on your foolish and indefensible comment...and really now...who is it that is throwing the 'hissy fit'? :lamo

You would have been much better served by just admitting you were wrong.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo You got called on your foolish and indefensible comment...and really now...who is it that is throwing the 'hissy fit'? :lamo

You would have been much better served by just admitting you were wrong.
Click to expand...

You are. You can't deal with the fact that these assholes backed Bundy, so you're trying to put it on me.
 
rocket88 said:
You are. You can't deal with the fact that these assholes backed Bundy, so you're trying to put it on me.
Click to expand...
:lamo THATS what you take out of all this? :lamo
 
Mr.Nick said:
To sum it up in something simple - democrats were racists and supported institutionalized racism. NOW, democrats use non-whites as a voting block by paying them..
Click to expand...

By PAYING them.
You're officially off into the weeds now. You're all over the map, but it won't work.
Just give it up, big fella.

LOObustingup.jpg
 
Mr.Nick said:
In what universe did I ever deny it WASN'T used by the Tea Party - all I implied was that I didn't care.

As a matter of fact I would love to see the Tea Party sport more yellow.
Click to expand...

You said it wasn't a Tea Party flag.
Holy krap, you're way more concerned with never being called out on something when you're wrong than might be considered healthy.
Wow.

Listen, it's OKAY to be wrong about something, okay?
Watch me, and I guarantee you that, sooner or later you will see a post in which I openly and freely admit to being wrong, or misinformed, or unenlightened about something. You won't even have to wait that long either, I promise.

You should try it sometime yourself, it's an important part of the growth process for conservatives, liberals, libertarians, the whole magilla.

GodzillaFACEPALM.jpg
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You said it wasn't a Tea Party flag.
Holy krap, you're way more concerned with never being called out on something when you're wrong than might be considered healthy.
Wow.

Listen, it's OKAY to be wrong about something, okay?
Watch me, and I guarantee you that, sooner or later you will see a post in which I openly and freely admit to being wrong, or misinformed, or unenlightened about something. You won't even have to wait that long either, I promise.

You should try it sometime yourself, it's an important part of the growth process for conservatives, liberals, libertarians, the whole magilla.

View attachment 67168046
Click to expand...

It was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Democrat, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.

Woodrow Wilson segregated Federal Buildings and jobs after 50 years of integration under largely Republican administrations.

It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted Jim Crow Laws.

It was the Democrat Party in the South that instituted "separate but equal".

It was the Democrat Party in the South that supported the Ku Klux Klan.

It was George Wallace and the Democrat Party in the South that said "Segregation Forever".

It was Orval Faubus and the Democrat Party that wanted the Arkansas National Guard to enforce segregation, and Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, that sent the 101st Airborne to integrate the schools.

It was Bull Connor, a member of the Democrat National Committee, who turned the hoses on the marchers in Birmingham, and it was the Republicans who made up the majority that passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, over the filibuster of such Democrat paragons as William Fulbright and Al Gore Sr. - and Grand Kleagle Byrd.

(And no, the Dixiecrats didn't join the Republican Party - most of them remained Democrats.)

It was the Democrats who kept Grand Kleagle Byrd in the party.

It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a "house nigger".

It was Democrats who called Condi Rice - who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats - an "Aunt Jemima" and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.

It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantaion. (sic) It's the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.

Spare me the revision.
 
rocket88 said:
I love how if I said that Israel's policies were wrong, that's anti-semitic. However when apparently someone is anti-semitic, we have to deflect attention away. It's like we don't even know what's anti-semitic anymore unless it can be used as a political weapon.
Click to expand...
You can disagree with Israel's policies without being anti-Semitic, however if the tone is something that assumes a superiority over the Jewish people in general and is hate based it would fit the definition. Policy is not equal to people.
 
tres borrachos said:
Whose "hero" is Bundy?
Click to expand...

You are the one that defends him, all the time, in your special way..you defend him, but when someone calls you on it, you say you don't.
 
beefheart said:
You are the one that defends him, all the time, in your special way..you defend him, but when someone calls you on it, you say you don't.
Click to expand...

Is this some sort of singular delusion, or shared? :doh

Bundy has nothing to do with this, in fact I would be surprised if he even knew who these people were...They were reportedly kicked out by those at the Bundy standoff, so, trying to tie this to Bundy is blatant partisan hackery..
 
beefheart said:
You are the one that defends him, all the time, in your special way..you defend him, but when someone calls you on it, you say you don't.
Click to expand...

That's nice, and thanks for sharing your opinion, beefheart, but I'm sure that rocket could have answered for himself.
 
beefheart said:
You are the one that defends him, all the time, in your special way..you defend him, but when someone calls you on it, you say you don't.
Click to expand...

You can defend somebody without regarding him as a "hero," you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom