Page 23 of 90 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 893

Thread: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans[W:466]

  1. #221
    Sage
    countryboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    17,705

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Liberals should be embarressed as hell that the race card is all their party has. "It's because Obama is black", is probably the most idiotic statement in human history.
    Liberals, embarrassed? Shirley you jest.

  2. #222
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Since this got me curious, just for the heck of it I looked up the 1957 and 1960 civil rights bills passed under Eisenhower:
    1957 House Democrats 122 AYE Republican 172 AYE
    1957 House Democrats 109 Nay Republican 22 Nay
    1957 Senate Democrats 29 Aye Republican 43 AYE
    1957 Senate Democrats 18 Nay Republican 0 Nay
    1960 House Democrat 179 AYE Republican 132 AYE
    1960 House Democrat 93 Nay Republican 15 Nay
    1960 Senate Democrat 44 AYE Republican 34 AYE
    1960 Senate Democrat 18 Nay Republican 0 Nay
    If he adds this part of history to his argument, he has to admit that by 1964, the lack of Republicans in Congress made Democratic support for the CRA'64 essential to its passing. If Democrats become essential in its passing, then how can they be painted as the big bad racists he says they are? Hell, your numbers show that within 3 years, the near the middle split of the Democratic Party had turned to a majority of Democrats voting in favor of the act. So how can mac get away with saying Democrats as a party opposed it? I think you just made his simplistic narrative a lot more complicated.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #223
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Huh? Do you understand what is being written or do you just post as you see fit?
    Both, yes.

    What was stated is that voting for the CRA'64 wasn't based on party lines, it was based on GEOGRAPHY and TIES TO THE CONFEDERACY. How was this proven? Two facts, 1 - Southern states voted against the CRA'64 - Fact. All 13 former confederate states voted against it. Fact. Do you have ANYTHING which disproves those facts? No? Okay, then this conversation is done.
    Which would be a reasonable argument if no other Democrats voted against it and they hadn't traditionally opposed civil rights. Further, Northern Democrats didn't find Southern Democrats' opposition to civil rights important enough to break away and form their own party. The argument is bankrupt.

    Nobody has used it to defend anything. What was stated was that the narrative you're telling is ridiculous, simplistic and far from reality. The facts - pesky things they are - show that the Democratic Party was divided. How can this be proven? Again, facts. The party was undisputably divided by the numbers alone. The majority of Democrats were in favor of the CRA'64. There was a minority that was against it. How was that minority defined? It was defined by the fact that it held office almost without exception in the South and in confederate states (13 of those states provided 116 of the votes).
    The facts are not what you say they are, that simple. This article's assumptions are historically simplistic and lacking in rational analysis.

    Now, how do we confirm that it was along geographic lines? Again - facts - we check to see how Republicans voted. Even as a minority, Republicans - the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS - voted against the bill. We have to check a third issue, how did Northern Republicans and Democrats vote? Without much of a difference. They were pretty much unilaterally in favor of it. Again, your narrative? Democrats - bad! Republicans! Good! Breaks down under any sort of scrutiny and there isn't a mangled sentence you make that can change that now.
    Again ignoring the northern support of Southern Democrats. The lack of moral courage to force the party away from racist policies or break away and form their own party. Also ignoring the historical support of NORTHERN Democrats of racist policies.

    Are you, are you reading facts? Yes or no? Okay, here we go again - let's prove you are reading:

    1. How did Southern Republicans vote in regards to the CRA'64?
    2. How did Southern Democrats vote in regards to the CRA'64?
    3. How did Northern Republicans vote in regards to the CRA'64?
    4. How did Northern Democrats vote in regards to the CRA'64?
    Yes, all of them. Not cherry picked facts taken out of context.

    Okay, now that you've answered those questions. Did the Democratic voting base who elected those racist Democrats and Republicans Congressmen/Senators cease to exist after 1964? Where did they go? Did they migrate out of the South? Now remember, the statement was that Obama is unpopular in the South partly because he's black. For that statement to be untrue, there simply can't be a sizeable percentage of the Southern population which was in full support of those racist Democrats and Republicans you enjoy telling and omitting about. We both know they didn't. They stayed put. Some migrated out. Some stayed Democrats, some became Republicans. Do you think 50% of the South moved North or suddenly became embracing of multicultural values? Lol. Get serious mac.
    So there we go with "all the racists moved over to the Republican party". You're ignoring the length of voter progression between parties and assuming any switch in allegiance is solely due to civil rights issues. Both of which are entirely simplistic and irrational, not to mention inaccurate. You're also ignoring the Jeffersonian ideal of "they can't integrate or succeed in white society, so we must help them" that has taken over the Democrat party.

    The Republican party overall supported civil rights from inception up to and including 1964. Can you say the same for the Democratic Party?
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  4. #224
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,923

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Whatever the history, it's 2014, and Landrieu's playing the race and gender cards is laughable and pathetic, particularly considering her gender. She has been in office quite some time...and perhaps enough time too.

  5. #225
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    If he adds this part of history to his argument, he has to admit that by 1964, the lack of Republicans in Congress made Democratic support for the CRA'64 essential to its passing. If Democrats become essential in its passing, then how can they be painted as the big bad racists he says they are? Hell, your numbers show that within 3 years, the near the middle split of the Democratic Party had turned to a majority of Democrats voting in favor of the act. So how can mac get away with saying Democrats as a party opposed it? I think you just made his simplistic narrative a lot more complicated.
    The Democrats were essential due to numbers, plain and simple. For that reason, they had to be sold on it. Regardless, it certainly wasn't Democrats driving the issue. Nor was the main opposition to it Republican.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  6. #226
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Mary lost the Picayune. She's screwed!

    You know her comments were maximum idiocy if the Picayune calls her out.

    A desperate Mary Landrieu smears the state she represents: James Varney | NOLA.com
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #227
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,923

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Good catch.

  8. #228
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,901

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    Eisenhower was a WAR HERO. He could have gotten elected anywhere. He was a fine president and a fine man, but let's not pretend that some sea change happened, considering, as you said, civil rights legislation was still a ways off.
    When he ran in 1952 being a War Hero wasn't enough for the deep Southern Democratic states to elect him. It wasn't enough for the deep South to vote for him in the 56 election either except for Louisianna while still taking the peripheral Southern states like Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia and Florida that surrounded them. Even though he didn't carry the deep Southern states, Republican voters were increasing in numbers. Every state that Ike did not carry in the South in 52 and 56 are the very same states whose representation in Congress filibustered the civil rights legislation and hindered it's passage. Even though the Republicans were gaining ground in those states, it wasn't because Ike was a war hero. He was the first president since Reconstruction to propose civil rights legislation.

    In 1957, President Eisenhower sent Congress a proposal for civil rights legislation. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The new act established the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department and empowered federal prosecutors to obtain court injunctions against interference with the right to vote. It also established a federal Civil Rights Commission with authority to investigate discriminatory conditions and recommend corrective measures. The final act was weakened by Congress due to lack of support among the Democrats.
    Eisenhower Presidential Library
    Last edited by vesper; 11-01-14 at 10:46 AM.

  9. #229
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,076

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Both, yes.
    Doubt it - as you're no longer even addressing what is being posted. You just create run on sentences at will.

    Which would be a reasonable argument if no other Democrats voted against it and they hadn't traditionally opposed civil rights. Further, Northern Democrats didn't find Southern Democrats' opposition to civil rights important enough to break away and form their own party. The argument is bankrupt.
    What an irrelevant argument to make. That the overwhelming majority doesn't suit your standards for the voting to be based on geographic lines is your problem. As for the second ridiculous point, it was the Southern Democrats who broke away from the Democratic Party in 1948. Lol. Where did you think Dixiecrats came from?

    The facts are not what you say they are, that simple. This article's assumptions are historically simplistic and lacking in rational analysis.

    Again ignoring the northern support of Southern Democrats.
    Northern support... for what? They literally voted in opposition to each other. Again, you're really trying hard to fight the facts.

    The lack of moral courage to force the party away from racist policies or break away and form their own party. Also ignoring the historical support of NORTHERN Democrats of racist policies.
    Already addressed, however:

    Dixiecrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Now, whether you think one section should have broken away from the other is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the discussion. Ignoring the support of what? Northern Democrats of racist policies? See, there you go with the weird sentences and no facts. The facts don't lie mac, overwhelmingly in 3 different CRA votes, Democrats came out in large droves. 3 times, more than 50% voted in favor of CRAs. 3 times, those votes were divided along geographic lines. 3 times, the Democrats who voted against it were Southerners for the most part. Alabama(D), Arkansas (D), Mississippi(D), Georgia (D), South Carolina(D), Virginia (D), South Carolina (D) - against....... in contrast...Rhode Island (R), NJ (R), NY (R), Vermont (R)... in favor... hmmm odd, those look amazingly familiar... I wonder why?

    Yes, all of them. Not cherry picked facts taken out of context.

    So there we go with "all the racists moved over to the Republican party". You're ignoring the length of voter progression between parties and assuming any switch in allegiance is solely due to civil rights issues. Both of which are entirely simplistic and irrational, not to mention inaccurate. You're also ignoring the Jeffersonian ideal of "they can't integrate or succeed in white society, so we must help them" that has taken over the Democrat party.
    You're refusing to answer a questions. I wonder why. Once Democrats changed their stance on segregation (and they did), what happened to voters who were pro-segregation? Did they migrate North? Did they stay put for the most part? Did they disappear? C'man mac, I want to hear you bull**** your way out of this. What happened to these people after 1964? What happened to the high schoolers who were pro-segregation? What happened to the 20 year olds who'd be in the 70s by now? Did they simply stop existing? They didn't raise kids or pass down their values? Again, I'm trying to see why you find the statement so flawed when you've literally spent the last 4 pages ducking and dodging questions.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #230
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    Μολὼν λαβέ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    09-29-17 @ 11:22 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,914

    Re: Sen. Landrieu's remarks on race anger Republicans

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Mary lost the Picayune. She's screwed!

    You know her comments were maximum idiocy if the Picayune calls her out.

    A desperate Mary Landrieu smears the state she represents: James Varney | NOLA.com
    "Senator Landrieu's comments are remarkably divisive," Jindal tweeted. "She appears to be living in a different century."
    My thoughts exactly. She should have dressed in similar attire when making her remarks.

    b7fc081b0fdcfe05b5551eb3c9379fbc.jpg

    Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

    A desperate Mary Landrieu smears the state she represents: James Varney | NOLA.com
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Generalizations are stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Steel View Post
    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns.

Page 23 of 90 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •