• 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!

Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263:617]

I don't think you could be more utterly obstinate if you tried.

Support for civil rights was largely based on geographic lines, not party lines, as has been illustrated to you numerous times by the regional voting for the CRA. Northern Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelmingly for it; Southern Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelmingly against it. These are facts, this is actually what happened. I do not know why this is so difficult for you to understand, except that for you to admit it would be for you to admit that all Democrats are not pure evil, and you're incapable of that.

I've explained this to him several times. It's partisan hackery. One becomes so wedded to the "us vs. them" mindset that it is impossible for them to see facts.
 
I've explained this to him several times. It's partisan hackery. One becomes so wedded to the "us vs. them" mindset that it is impossible for them to see facts.

"Partisan hackery" would be an improvement. It's simply blindness to facts.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

How anyone can claim it was simply a Republican/Democrat thing is just stunning. They even get the Robert Byrd cudgel, and STILL they pretend that ALL Democrats, including those in the north, simply hated the blacks, and ALL Republicans, including those in the south, were the triumphant freedom fighters, AND they ignore that the guy who signed the bill into law was a Democrat.

I don't have a ton of use for the Democrats, but the willful ignorance of history forces me to speak up for them.
 
So despite the history of Republicans supporting Blacks for over a century, including fighting and dying for their freedom, and the Democrats fighting against Black rights, in 1964 it was decided that everyone switch sides and the Democrats would henceforth become pro civil rights and the Republicans anti Black. Is that the sophisticated political observation?

The sophistication is understanding the conservative influence, which would include understanding the distinction between Republicans and conservatives as well as the distinction between Democrats and liberals. The sophistication would be in understanding the Republican and Democratic track records may be as you suggest, but it the underlying issue is that it was (and is) the conservatives that were fighting against the rights of blacks. They did so under the umbrella of the Democrats until the in 1960's and now do it as Republicans. Given that the conservatives have cleansed the Republican party; its not illogical to blame the current Republicans for such things. The fact that the conservatives changed leagues does not diminish the conservative legacy of being anti-black rights.
 
"Partisan hackery" would be an improvement. It's simply blindness to facts.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

How anyone can claim it was simply a Republican/Democrat thing is just stunning. They even get the Robert Byrd cudgel, and STILL they pretend that ALL Democrats, including those in the north, simply hated the blacks, and ALL Republicans, including those in the south, were the triumphant freedom fighters, AND they ignore that the guy who signed the bill into law was a Democrat.

I don't have a ton of use for the Democrats, but the willful ignorance of history forces me to speak up for them.

Already posted this information at post #350. I've posted it towards him in the past, too. Cognitive dissonance prevents him from being able to get the meaning behind it.
 
Already posted this information at post #350. I've posted it towards him in the past, too. Cognitive dissonance prevents him from being able to get the meaning behind it.

I post it every time the issue comes up. It makes little difference.
 
I've explained this to him several times. It's partisan hackery. One becomes so wedded to the "us vs. them" mindset that it is impossible for them to see facts.

RiverDad gave you a far greater historical analysis with graphs and stats and dates on anther thread. You probably didn't read it, nor did you watch the video on the history of Civil Rights in America.

If you truly believe that the two parties suddenly switched sides some time in the mid sixties with the Democrats becoming Republicans and Republicans then becoming Democrats then I think you should continue to believe that. It's already locked in place and nothing can shake your determination to continue with that belief.
 
The sophistication is understanding the conservative influence, which would include understanding the distinction between Republicans and conservatives as well as the distinction between Democrats and liberals. The sophistication would be in understanding the Republican and Democratic track records may be as you suggest, but it the underlying issue is that it was (and is) the conservatives that were fighting against the rights of blacks. They did so under the umbrella of the Democrats until the in 1960's and now do it as Republicans. Given that the conservatives have cleansed the Republican party; its not illogical to blame the current Republicans for such things. The fact that the conservatives changed leagues does not diminish the conservative legacy of being anti-black rights.

So you believe it was a Conservative versus a Liberal thing, and the names of the parties really didn't matter. Would that be correct? Thus the Democrats through the great portion of their history were really Conservative and the Republicans Liberal. Then they suddenly switched sides.

But there is strong evidence that the Democrats are not all that 'liberal' today and continue to have racist policies. How do you explain that?
 
RiverDad gave you a far greater historical analysis with graphs and stats and dates on anther thread. You probably didn't read it, nor did you watch the video on the history of Civil Rights in America.

Riverdad has a history of posting links that either don't support his position or that misrepresent facts in an anti-liberal partisan hack way. I've yet to see him post a link that has credibility. I don't remember what he posted on this, but if he posted it, I would be very skeptical. Further, I posted stats and information that you have been totally incapable of refuting... now or in the past.

If you truly believe that the two parties suddenly switched sides some time in the mid sixties with the Democrats becoming Republicans and Republicans then becoming Democrats then I think you should continue to believe that. It's already locked in place and nothing can shake your determination to continue with that belief.

If you want to believe that the South suddenly turned Republican in 1964/1965 after nearly 100 years of being Democrat on some sort of odd whim, then I think you should continue to believe that and continue to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. I posted information that, as I have said, you have been incapable of refuting. Now, if you want to stay with your biased, inaccurate position, I can't stop you, but that's exactly what it is... biased and inaccurate.
 
The sophistication is understanding the conservative influence, which would include understanding the distinction between Republicans and conservatives as well as the distinction between Democrats and liberals. The sophistication would be in understanding the Republican and Democratic track records may be as you suggest, but it the underlying issue is that it was (and is) the conservatives that were fighting against the rights of blacks. They did so under the umbrella of the Democrats until the in 1960's and now do it as Republicans. Given that the conservatives have cleansed the Republican party; its not illogical to blame the current Republicans for such things. The fact that the conservatives changed leagues does not diminish the conservative legacy of being anti-black rights.

So in your sophisticated logic it was Conservatives who are racist, not the Democrats, and because Republicans are called Conservative, it is really they who are now racist. Conservatives, according to you, must inevitably be racist.

That's leftist sophistication, alright!
 
RiverDad gave you a far greater historical analysis with graphs and stats and dates on anther thread. You probably didn't read it, nor did you watch the video on the history of Civil Rights in America.

If you truly believe that the two parties suddenly switched sides some time in the mid sixties with the Democrats becoming Republicans and Republicans then becoming Democrats then I think you should continue to believe that. It's already locked in place and nothing can shake your determination to continue with that belief.

Of course, nobody said that's what happened.
 
Riverdad has a history of posting links that either don't support his position or that misrepresent facts in an anti-liberal partisan hack way. I've yet to see him post a link that has credibility. I don't remember what he posted on this, but if he posted it, I would be very skeptical. Further, I posted stats and information that you have been totally incapable of refuting... now or in the past. If you want to believe that the South suddenly turned Republican in 1964/1965 after nearly 100 years of being Democrat on some sort of odd whim, then I think you should continue to believe that and continue to ignore all the evidence to the contrary. I posted information that, as I have said, you have been incapable of refuting. Now, if you want to stay with your biased, inaccurate position, I can't stop you, but that's exactly what it is... biased and inaccurate.
You seem to ignore anything that doesn't fit into your established POV and will ignore anything to the contrary. Of course its more than just 1964 and RiverDad, who you condemn without reading, has added some relevant history. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ech-protesters-target-vc-vulgar-flyer-17.html
 
So in your sophisticated logic it was Conservatives who are racist, not the Democrats, and because Republicans are called Conservative, it is really they who are now racist. Conservatives, according to you, must inevitably be racist.

That's leftist sophistication, alright!

You are obviously not a student of US political history or you would understand how the Civil Rights act of 1964 shifted the political landscape including the exodus of the conservatives from the Democratic Party....

Typical right wing education...
 
So in your sophisticated logic it was Conservatives who are racist, not the Democrats, and because Republicans are called Conservative, it is really they who are now racist. Conservatives, according to you, must inevitably be racist.

That's leftist sophistication, alright!

How about this? Go over to stormfront where racism runs rampant. Take a poll and find out what percentage of them are liberals and what percentage of them are conservatives. Then get back to us with the results... at which point you will have your answer as to whether more liberals or more conservatives are racist. Of course, you could just ignore the results, which would be an excellent example of conservative denial.
 
You seem to ignore anything that doesn't fit into your established POV and will ignore anything to the contrary. Of course its more than just 1964 and RiverDad, who you condemn without reading, has added some relevant history. http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ech-protesters-target-vc-vulgar-flyer-17.html

And as usual with you, Grant, your partisan hack belief system keeps you in denial and keeps you from understanding the facts of this issue. I read the thread of which you linked. Not only did ANOTHER one of Riverdad's links get shredded and refuted (he's got to be the WORST researcher at DP), but nothing he said countered anything I have posted in this thread. You want to ignore the numbers and the facts of what I posted because it destroys the cognitive dissonance of your faulty and rigid "liberal bad, conservative good" belief system, then feel free. But do understand... this is the SECOND time I've massacred your on this issue and the second time you've had no response that has had any substance or credibility. I'll happily wait for number 3.
 
How about this? Go over to stormfront where racism runs rampant. Take a poll and find out what percentage of them are liberals and what percentage of them are conservatives. Then get back to us with the results... at which point you will have your answer as to whether more liberals or more conservatives are racist. Of course, you could just ignore the results, which would be an excellent example of conservative denial.

Why not just ask them by who they vote for, Democrat or Republican.
 
And as usual with you, Grant, your partisan hack belief system keeps you in denial and keeps you from understanding the facts of this issue. I read the thread of which you linked. Not only did ANOTHER one of Riverdad's links get shredded and refuted (he's got to be the WORST researcher at DP), but nothing he said countered anything I have posted in this thread. You want to ignore the numbers and the facts of what I posted because it destroys the cognitive dissonance of your faulty and rigid "liberal bad, conservative good" belief system, then feel free. But do understand... this is the SECOND time I've massacred your on this issue and the second time you've had no response that has had any substance or credibility. I'll happily wait for number 3.

You continually make the same posts attacking the posters rather than the substance.
 
Why not just ask them by who they vote for, Democrat or Republican.

Ask them both. I go over there from time to time just to see what the moron racists are talking about. I see very few Democrats and even fewer liberals. Nearly all are right wingers, and I'd imagine that those who don't vote some insane third part, vote Republican.
 
You continually make the same posts attacking the posters rather than the substance.

I've made plenty of posts attacking the substance. You have offered no refutation. I'm not attacking you. I'm attacking the substance and meaning of what you post.
 
I've explained this to him several times. It's partisan hackery. One becomes so wedded to the "us vs. them" mindset that it is impossible for them to see facts.
It really is a shame how bad some people (from both sides) fall victim to this. I recently engaged in a debate with someone where he was presented with facts from official sources which directly proved him wrong and he still claimed he was right. It's mind-boggling how badly some people are consumed by partisanship. Eventually you just have to ignore them and let them play in their own ignorance.
 
Back
Top Bottom