Republicans showing their true colors and true intent

PostmodernProphet said:
obviously we should not have segregation in America....as I pointed out, Democrats were on the wrong side of the issue then.......and since you brought it up, they are currently on the wrong side of the issue of redefining the social institution of marriage.......
Click to expand...

You need to expand your argument, you are making general accusations without any basis other than your own 'feelings'. If we should not have segregation, then how were Democrats on the wrong side? Democrats ended segregation. President Kennedy (D) proposed the bill, it was authored BY Democrats, voted FOR by a majority of Democrats in Congress and push through by President Johnson (D). The bill had little or no support from southern conservatives from either party. In the House, only 7 out of 87 southern Democrats voted yea. In the Senate 1 out of 20 southern Democrats voted yea. Out of 10 southern Republicans in the House, and 1 southern Republican in the senate ZERO voted yea.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Given your OP of this thread, I find this statement incredibly ironic. :)
Click to expand...

'Incredible irony' is right wingers who preach less government and non intrusive government suddenly supporting giving one Republican Governor the power and force to fire local elected officials, break contracts, seize and sell assets, eliminate services - and even eliminate whole cities or school districts without any public input.


Force without judgment falls on its own weight.
Horace
 
Bfgrn said:
'Incredible irony' is right wingers who preach less government and non intrusive government suddenly supporting giving one Republican Governor the power and force to fire local elected officials, break contracts, seize and sell assets, eliminate services - and even eliminate whole cities or school districts without any public input.


Force without judgment falls on its own weight.
Horace
Click to expand...

How are eliminating government services and forcing its employees to more efficient inconsistent with limited government and low taxes?
 
Damn Yankee said:
How are eliminating government services and forcing its employees to more efficient inconsistent with limited government and low taxes?
Click to expand...

Of course... I forgot the right wing mantra; the ends justify the means.

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
George W. Bush
 
Damn Yankee said:
How are eliminating government services and forcing its employees to more efficient inconsistent with limited government and low taxes?
Click to expand...

You use the words 'eliminating services' and 'employees' in the same sentence. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just 'eliminate employees'? It is what dictators do, they eliminate people.
 
Sen. Everett Dirksen (R) wrote much of the CRA of 1964, along with the 1957 and 1960 versions, both of which were signed by Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R). He was the primary force leading the Senate to overcome the record 80 day filibuster led by Sen. Robert Byrd (D- who finally died last year).
 
Bfgrn said:
So we should have segregation in America? Because the conservative position, particularly in the south was 'Segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever'

We only have to look at gay rights today to see the difference between liberals and conservatives that still exists
Click to expand...

Funny... the QUOTE was from a lifelong DEMOCRAT!
 
Bf00n said:
'Incredible irony' is right wingers who preach less government and non intrusive government suddenly supporting giving one Republican Governor the power and force to fire local elected officials, break contracts, seize and sell assets, eliminate services - and even eliminate whole cities or school districts without any public input.


Force without judgment falls on its own weight.
Horace
Click to expand...

The 'incredible irony' is how pinheads as dumb as you, can make it through life without being hit by a bus or accidentally slashing your wrist or something. No one has "given" the Governor ANY power that is not authorized by the Constitution, and I don't recall the Constitution authorizing governors to fire elected officials, or seize and sell assets for no reason. They certainly have the Constitutional authority to break contracts and eliminate services. So why don't you stop it with the overblown lies and distortions here, and try to have an adult conversation with people who actually HAVE a brain?
 
Also regarding Conservatism and Civil Rights:

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/W._Chapman_Revercomb/1

He was elected to the Senate in 1942. There he championed opposition to the foreign and domestic policies of the administration of Harry S. Truman and was a stalwart supporter of civil rights.
Click to expand...

W. Chapman Revercomb was both a stalwart conservative Republican and a stalwart supporter of civil rights. He voted for the CRA of 1957, which obviously cost him re-election against Robert fucking parasite Byrd in 1958. How do you explain this, Bfgrbdiwfce?
 
Bfgrn said:
Of course... I forgot the right wing mantra; the ends justify the means.

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
George W. Bush
Click to expand...

Bfgrn said:
You use the words 'eliminating services' and 'employees' in the same sentence. Wouldn't it be more efficient to just 'eliminate employees'? It is what dictators do, they eliminate people.
Click to expand...

Two responses to my question yet you didn't answer it. :)
 
Dixie said:
Funny... the QUOTE was from a lifelong DEMOCRAT!
Click to expand...

And he later claimed to regret using it.

Journalist Bob Ingram recalls that when Wallace first saw the "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" line which Carter had written for his inaugural address, Wallace was pleased, saying "I like that line. I like it, and I’m going to use it."[8] However, later in life Wallace changed his views on segregation and came to regret his famous phrase, calling it his "biggest mistake".[25]
 
The sad thing about politicians like Wallace, is that they are too old to be suddenly learning such basic moral principles to be let off the hook. I'm not even old enough to run for Congress until May 18th, and I've altered some of the beliefs I held back when I was 12-17 years old, but I wasn't even a legal adult back then!!
 
christiefan915 said:
And he later claimed to regret using it.

Journalist Bob Ingram recalls that when Wallace first saw the "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" line which Carter had written for his inaugural address, Wallace was pleased, saying "I like that line. I like it, and I’m going to use it."[8] However, later in life Wallace changed his views on segregation and came to regret his famous phrase, calling it his "biggest mistake".[25]
Click to expand...

Yep... Wallace, like most Americans, changed his views over time. It happens! :good4u:
 
Dixie said:
Yep... Wallace, like most Americans, changed his views over time. It happens! :good4u:
Click to expand...

This goes to the root of what I have said. Bf00n is indicative of many on the left, he fails to try and understand things in perspective of the times. He wants to apply the understanding and viewpoints of our time, to a time of the past, and condemn those people as if they lived today and spoke those views... the problem is, when we go down that road, we find Lincoln saying he didn't think the negro could ever maintain social equality with whites... We have Teddy Roosevelt saying he felt the african race was inferior to the white race... Some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves... So the understanding and comprehension of race as we currently view it as a society, is just not the same. How can you condemn someone for something they never understood or the society of their time was not enlightened about? In my opinion, this is an unfair way to judge people... just as it is unfair to be raising issues from Civil Rights to try and imply Republicans are racists, or whatever. It's just Pinhead Stupid.
 
Dixie said:
The 'incredible irony' is how pinheads as dumb as you, can make it through life without being hit by a bus or accidentally slashing your wrist or something. No one has "given" the Governor ANY power that is not authorized by the Constitution, and I don't recall the Constitution authorizing governors to fire elected officials, or seize and sell assets for no reason. They certainly have the Constitutional authority to break contracts and eliminate services. So why don't you stop it with the overblown lies and distortions here, and try to have an adult conversation with people who actually HAVE a brain?
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot. This seizing of power is done with good intent. I will fire off a letter to President Obama, so he can immediately bypass all democratic processes and implement whatever he wants...all he needs is 'good intent'

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
I disagree, Dixie. People can certainly maker poorer choices as a result of their societies, but they will still be held to the same standards come Judgement Day. The Bible parable about the dead brother who pleads with God to let him appear to his brothers and warn them to change their ways is one of the most instructive, as God tells the man that they already have the scriptures and the prophets to instruct them how to live their lives.
 
Bfgrn said:
Oh, I forgot. This seizing of power is done with good intent. I will fire off a letter to President Obama, so he can immediately bypass all democratic processes and implement whatever he wants...all he needs is 'good intent'

Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...

Who seized power? The governor? You mean he wasn't elected? How has he bypassed the democratic process and implement whatever he wants? Has he started ordering air strikes on his own people? Maybe we can have a no-fly zone?
 
King of 32DDD said:
Sen. Everett Dirksen (R) wrote much of the CRA of 1964, along with the 1957 and 1960 versions, both of which were signed by Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R). He was the primary force leading the Senate to overcome the record 80 day filibuster led by Sen. Robert Byrd (D- who finally died last year).
Click to expand...

Everett Dirksen was a great public servant. You will not hear a discouraging word from me. Minority leader Dirksen and Majority Leader Mansfield, Thomas Kuchel (R-CA) and Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) crafted and introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster led by Sen. Richard Russell. Mansfield also used some parliamentary moves to get the bill to the floor.

BUT, no one should underestimate Lyndon Baines Johnson and his use of the 'Johnson treatment' to get the bill passed.

johnsontreatment01.jpg
lbjrichardrussell.jpg
LBJ meets with Sen. Richard Russell

nytjohnson02.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top