Page 24 of 90 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 893

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

  1. #231
    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
    Doubt it - as you're no longer even addressing what is being posted. You just create run on sentences at will.
    False.

    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?
    It's entirely relevant. The Dixiecrats broke away, not the "non-racist Democrats" and they did so on their principles, as f-d up as they were. The Democrats obviously did not feel such affinity for their anti-racist morals. You made my point here, thank you.

    Northern support... for what? They literally voted in opposition to each other. Again, you're really trying hard to fight the facts.
    Northern support for Southern Democrats throughout the history of the party. There's even a name for it: Doughface.

    Already addressed, however:

    Dixiecrat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Addressed to my point, again, thank you. The mainstream Democrats didn't break away at any point leading up to this, the Dixiecrats did.

    Now, whether you think one section should have broken away from the other is completely irrelevant.
    It's ENTIRELY relevant. Specially in light of your implication that post 1964, all the racists broke away from the Democrats and joined the Republicans. :

    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?
    It has everything to do with the Discussion. Southern dominance in the Democratic party was nothing new in 1964, yet Northern Democrats continued to participate in their party. Why? Because their opposition to racist policies, where it did exist, was not important enough for them to break away from an OBVIOUSLY racist party leadership.

    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'm not refusing to answer the questions, I'm pointing out all the OTHER facts that you are ignoring. Like the opposition to the 1957 civil rights act.
    ”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.

  2. #232
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    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.
    Good grief, you've gone from a high of Democrats had racist policies! To Democrats were needed for the CRA to pass but they weren't driving the issue! Your entire case that Democrats were a movement racist monsters of the 40s and 50s doesn't fit the facts mac. Face it, you had no evidence to unilaterally declare that Democrats as a party were against civil rights in the 40s and 50s. The voting record wasn't there. The statistics weren't there. The numbers simply did not paint the picture you wanted it to. Now, let's put those numbers on a map and the divide in the Democratic Party is clear. However, that divide separates the South and North of the US. Which again supports the argument that Obama wouldn't be popular in a region that supported racism regardless of political party in power. I'm glad you've come to terms with your ridiculous assertion and have downgraded your academically simplistic assault to the acceptance that Republicans weren't the saviors you're portraying them as and Democrats weren't the slave drivers you wish they were.
    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. #233
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,869

    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 reason for some Republicans voting against some of the legislation proposed is because what Eisenhower originally supported was watered down by Democrats.

    Here's a blast from the past that bears out my point.
    http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/r...ws_Release.pdf

  4. #234
    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
    Good grief, you've gone from a high of Democrats had racist policies! To Democrats were needed for the CRA to pass but they weren't driving the issue! Your entire case that Democrats were a movement racist monsters of the 40s and 50s doesn't fit the facts mac. Face it, you had no evidence to unilaterally declare that Democrats as a party were against civil rights in the 40s and 50s. The voting record wasn't there. The statistics weren't there. The numbers simply did not paint the picture you wanted it to. Now, let's put those numbers on a map and the divide in the Democratic Party is clear. However, that divide separates the South and North of the US. Which again supports the argument that Obama wouldn't be popular in a region that supported racism regardless of political party in power. I'm glad you've come to terms with your ridiculous assertion and have downgraded your academically simplistic assault to the acceptance that Republicans weren't the saviors you're portraying them as and Democrats weren't the slave drivers you wish they were.
    They weren't driving the issue. They (as a party) weren't driving it at any point up to an including 1964. That's a fact. There obviously were a few Democrats notable for their pro-civil rights stance, but the party as a whole wasn't pro-civil rights. Without good people like Humphrey, Truman and Kennedy....it's possible they never would have made the switch.
    ”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.

  5. #235
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Μολὼν λαβέ View Post
    My thoughts exactly. She should have dressed in similar attire when making her remarks.

    Attachment 67175285

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

    A desperate Mary Landrieu smears the state she represents: James Varney | NOLA.com


    Mornin MA Yeah and now all thru the Weekend her own people get to hear it over an over......all due to the repeating 3 Day News Cycle. This definitely will finalize the Repubs gaining this Senate seat.

  6. #236
    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 vesper View Post
    The reason for some Republicans voting against some of the legislation proposed is because what Eisenhower originally supported was watered down by Democrats.

    Here's a blast from the past that bears out my point.
    http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/r...ws_Release.pdf
    Which illustrates my "for political purposes" statement. Thank you.
    ”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.

  7. #237
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    False.
    Now you're arguing just to argue:

    It's entirely relevant. The Dixiecrats broke away, not the "non-racist Democrats" and they did so on their principles, as f-d up as they were. The Democrats obviously did not feel such affinity for their anti-racist morals. You made my point here, thank you.
    You're trying too hard and it's showing. The fact that the Dixiecrats broke away demonstrates that the "Democrats were racist" narrative doesn't match. A party division is proof that the Democrats weren't united in the CRA debate.

    Northern support for Southern Democrats throughout the history of the party. There's even a name for it: Doughface.
    Good grief, for the second time - Northern Democrats did not vote with Southern Democrats as far as CRAs were concerned. This is proven in 3 different CRAs. In 3 different cases, you have the party split ~50-~50 in regards to the civil rights act. That completely refutes the claim that Democrats were a homogenous group against the CRAs.

    Addressed to my point, again, thank you. The mainstream Democrats didn't break away at any point leading up to this, the Dixiecrats did.

    It's ENTIRELY relevant. Specially in light of your implication that post 1964, all the racists broke away from the Democrats and joined the Republicans. :
    It's irrelevant, because it leads to the same conclusion. At no point were Democrats the homogenous group you and vesper pretend they are. That's why it's irrelevant. If Northern Democrats had broken from Southern Democrats, it would have still demonstrated that Democrats weren't a homogenous group against the CRAs. In both cases, it demonstrates that Democrats were as much in favor as against the CRA and the defining characteristic wasn't party affiliation it was geographic position. You're getting desperate for anything which might help you, but the evidence simply isn't there.

    It has everything to do with the Discussion. Southern dominance in the Democratic party was nothing new in 1964, yet Northern Democrats continued to participate in their party. Why? Because their opposition to racist policies, where it did exist, was not important enough for them to break away from an OBVIOUSLY racist party leadership.

    I'm not refusing to answer the questions, I'm pointing out all the OTHER facts that you are ignoring. Like the opposition to the 1957 civil rights act.
    Tell us mac, how did Southern states vote in the CRAs? How did Northern States vote?
    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

  8. #238
    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
    Now you're arguing just to argue:
    No, I'm arguing because your assertion is rediculous.

    You're trying too hard and it's showing. The fact that the Dixiecrats broke away demonstrates that the "Democrats were racist" narrative doesn't match. A party division is proof that the Democrats weren't united in the CRA debate.
    Well, you're not trying at all. You're just sticking your fingers in your ears.

    Good grief, for the second time - Northern Democrats did not vote with Southern Democrats as far as CRAs were concerned. This is proven in 3 different CRAs. In 3 different cases, you have the party split ~50-~50 in regards to the civil rights act. That completely refutes the claim that Democrats were a homogenous group against the CRAs.
    Which is a snapshot of history, not indicative of the trend. Again, while both parties supported the final 1964 civil rights act, Democrats did not historically support civil rights acts. Fact. Therefore, the driving force behind the progression towards accepting civil rights for all was not driven by Democrats. Fact.

    It's irrelevant, because it leads to the same conclusion. At no point were Democrats the homogenous group you and vesper pretend they are. That's why it's irrelevant. If Northern Democrats had broken from Southern Democrats, it would have still demonstrated that Democrats weren't a homogenous group against the CRAs. In both cases, it demonstrates that Democrats were as much in favor as against the CRA and the defining characteristic wasn't party affiliation it was geographic position. You're getting desperate for anything which might help you, but the evidence simply isn't there.
    But Republicans are? There is very nearly as much racist history in the Northern Democrats history as the southern.

    Tell us mac, how did Southern states vote in the CRAs? How did Northern States vote?
    How did Democrats vote in every civil rights act leading up to that point?
    ”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.

  9. #239
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    The reason for some Republicans voting against some of the legislation proposed is because what Eisenhower originally supported was watered down by Democrats.

    Here's a blast from the past that bears out my point.
    http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/r...ws_Release.pdf
    I thought this needed fixing:

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper
    The reason for all Southern Republicans voting against the CRA'64 is....
    Now read from "From over 80 years...." to "...has to respect." I'll give you a clue, what I've been stating all along is there. 11 states which were against desegregation, 11-13 states where Obama isn't popular. Is this surprising to people? Not really. Republicans in the South voted against the CRA because they were in the South. Admitting that doesn't make you guilty of racism. It doesn't make me guilty of racism to say that some Democrats in the South supported slavery and segregation. Why would it? This is all history. However this feigned outrage that this woman said what is a fact, that Obama is not all that popular in the South because well to some extent the South is racist as **** - is just that. Feigned outrage. You can't have it both ways and say that Democrats were racist, but the Southerners who elected them, many of whom are still alive, aren't racist or don't exist anymore.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 11-01-14 at 11:37 AM.
    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. #240
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,869

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I thought this needed fixing:



    Now read from "From over 80 years...." to "...has to respect." I'll give you a clue, what I've been stating all along is there. 11 states which were against desegregation, 11-13 states where Obama isn't popular. Is this surprising to people? Not really. Republicans in the South voted against the CRA because they were in the South. Admitting that doesn't make you guilty of racism. It doesn't make me guilty of racism to say that some Democrats in the South supported slavery and segregation. Why would it? This is all history. However this feigned outrage that this woman said what is a fact, that Obama is not all that popular in the South because well to some extent the South is racist as **** - is just that. Feigned outrage. You can't have it both ways and say that Democrats were racist, but the Southerners who elected them, many of whom are still alive, aren't racist or don't exist anymore.
    Don't ever change the words within my quote again. I believe there are rules against such things. I am talking about the Civil Rights Act under Ike not the civil rights bill of 64. Your little trick shows desperation in justifying your point of view and doesn't address the truth behind what Democrats in the Senate did to the first decent piece of civil rights legislation since Reconstruction.

Page 24 of 90 FirstFirst ... 1422232425263474 ... 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
  •