Republicans showing their true colors and true intent

Though I loathe LBJ, I'll never question his sincerity in Civil Rights. His predecessor, on the other hand, I've always been skeptical of, in terms of his committment and motives. That token phone call helped get him elected, but then he turned around and sicked his brother on MLK. Its impossible to question the committment of a man from segregated Texas.
 
Bfgrn said:
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.
Click to expand...

?????....are you from some parallel universe?....
 
King of 32DDD said:
Though I loathe LBJ, I'll never question his sincerity in Civil Rights. His predecessor, on the other hand, I've always been skeptical of, in terms of his committment and motives. That token phone call helped get him elected, but then he turned around and sicked his brother on MLK. Its impossible to question the committment of a man from segregated Texas.
Click to expand...
He grew up dirt poor, and understood what it was like to have your future written for you by those of privilege. That's probably why he hated the Kennedy's.
 
King of 32DDD said:
Though I loathe LBJ, I'll never question his sincerity in Civil Rights. His predecessor, on the other hand, I've always been skeptical of, in terms of his committment and motives. That token phone call helped get him elected, but then he turned around and sicked his brother on MLK. Its impossible to question the committment of a man from segregated Texas.
Click to expand...

I loathe people who paint history with a bias and simple inaccuracy.

I suggest you learn about J.Edgar Hoover, the FBI and the activities of the Hoover run FBI, including surveillance of MLK Jr. AND the Kennedy brothers.

Then, I suggest you research the office of Attorney General of the United States.

Do you know which 35th President and Attorney General personally warned MLK Jr. of FBI surveillance?
 
King of 32DDD said:
That lying son-of-a-bitch Kennedy? Was Hoover also acting on his own when RFK ordered him to do surveillance on the Klan?
Click to expand...

You are confused. The biggest piece of shit our government ever had was J. Edgar Hoover. The FBI Director wasn't ordered, he did the ordering. He had enough dirt on everyone he needed to control.
 
King of 32DDD said:
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!!
Click to expand...

What about when Norma McCovey of Roe v. Wade supported abortion but in later life reversed her views to become anti-choice?

I know she's not a politician but views can and do evolve over time.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

A couple of days ago I commented that the Republican party was being hijacked by a fringe with a social agenda that involved limiting rights, and people kept referring me to the Civil Rights issues and the times when southern Dems were pro-segregation.

So in your own words it's "pinhead stupid" to use the events of 50+ years ago to try and offset what fringe righties are doing today.
 
christiefan915 said:
What about when Norma McCovey of Roe v. Wade supported abortion but in later life reversed her views to become anti-choice?

I know she's not a politician but views can and do evolve over time.
Click to expand...

I am aware that one of my faults is that I am not a terribly forgiving person. People who know me often don't perceive this, because I am an extremely forgiving person in everyday life, because it consists of honest mistakes, minor slights, and other non-serious offenses. I find it shocking that the same people who are constantly creating drama and fighting over minor offenses are willing to forgive the worst instances in society. Thus, my reactions to some things are a bit skewed from the norm. I also don't believe in the "corrections department," because it doesn't rehabilitate people. I don't believe in harsher sentencing, or the death penalty, but I believe we should be honest with ourselves about punishment and retribution, or at least about protecting society.

I am aware that the woman is now a pro-life advocate. I am aware numerous abortion doctors are as well. But I am also aware that nothing they do can bring back the lives they have all taken. They will never receive my forgiveness, but they can at least redeem themselves before their God. I believe you will recognize this sentiment from when I speak of political ideologies and movements.
 
Bfgrn said:
41CERZKNYQL.jpg
Constitution_toilet_paper.jpg


Governor Rick Snyder (R-Mich.) and his Republican Reich will enact a law that would impose "financial martial law" upon struggling communities in the form of "financial managers" that would have the power to abrogate contracts at will and supersede the democratic process. There's been a lot of recent media attention focused on a similar disregard for the public will in Wisconsin, but what's happening in Michigan really makes Scott Walker look like an amateur.

Michigan Set To Enact Sweeping 'Financial Martial Law' Bill

Michigan lawmakers are on the verge of approving a bill that would enable the governor to appoint "emergency managers" -- officials with unilateral power to make sweeping changes to cities facing financial troubles.

Under the legislation, the Michigan Messenger reports, the governor could declare a "financial emergency" in towns or school districts. He could then appoint a manager 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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20042299-503544.html

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus
Click to expand...


I've read through this thread, and to date the supporters for this neo-fascist proposal have yet to provide the parts of the Constitution that support this insanity in Michigan.

And here's the clincher:

"....Snyder has also proposed eliminating $1.7 billion in tax breaks for individuals while cutting $1.8 billion in taxes for businesses to spur job growth."

Where are the teabaggers with all their wailing about gov't intrusion/takeover of their lives? Or maybe they all the while wanted a mini-monarchy? And once again the working man is being asked to carry the burden for failed gov't and business leaders.

I mean, the sheer hypocrisy of the neocon parrots and punditry here is staggering (but strangely not unexpected).
 
Taichiliberal said:
I've read through this thread, and to date the supporters for this neo-fascist proposal have yet to provide the parts of the Constitution that support this insanity in Michigan.
Click to expand...

oh, that would be "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".....I'm sorry we hadn't covered that for you....
 
Taichiliberal said:
I've read through this thread, and to date the supporters for this neo-fascist proposal have yet to provide the parts of the Constitution that support this insanity in Michigan.

And here's the clincher:

"....Snyder has also proposed eliminating $1.7 billion in tax breaks for individuals while cutting $1.8 billion in taxes for businesses to spur job growth."

Where are the teabaggers with all their wailing about gov't intrusion/takeover of their lives? Or maybe they all the while wanted a mini-monarchy? And once again the working man is being asked to carry the burden for failed gov't and business leaders.

I mean, the sheer hypocrisy of the neocon parrots and punditry here is staggering (but strangely not unexpected).
Click to expand...


Yes! The sheer hypocrisy of Republicans actually doing what they promised when they were running for office and asking for the votes! How dare they do what they say! Liberals can't be expected to distort and lie their way around this kind of honesty... it's just not fair!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I've read through this thread, and to date the supporters for this neo-fascist proposal have yet to provide the parts of the Constitution that support this insanity in Michigan.
Click to expand...

oh, that would be "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.".....I'm sorry we hadn't covered that for you....
Click to expand...

Well, my Post Modern Fool, you once again demonstrate your inability to read carefully and comprehensively, as Sen. Conyers (D-Detroit) explains:

... Worse yet, this bill raises serious constitutional concerns. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits any State from impairing a contract, which is exactly what this legislation does. As the Supreme Court has held in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934), the sanctity of contracts cannot be impaired by a state law “which renders them invalid, or releases or extinguishes them . . . . Not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between the parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.”[/I]

Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.




I don't expect any rational, honest or correct information from our Post Modern Fool and the cohorts he refers to....the above explains why. PMP validates my previous statement to BFGRN.
 
Dixie said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I've read through this thread, and to date the supporters for this neo-fascist proposal have yet to provide the parts of the Constitution that support this insanity in Michigan.

And here's the clincher:

"....Snyder has also proposed eliminating $1.7 billion in tax breaks for individuals while cutting $1.8 billion in taxes for businesses to spur job growth."

Where are the teabaggers with all their wailing about gov't intrusion/takeover of their lives? Or maybe they all the while wanted a mini-monarchy? And once again the working man is being asked to carry the burden for failed gov't and business leaders.

I mean, the sheer hypocrisy of the neocon parrots and punditry here is staggering (but strangely not unexpected).
Click to expand...



Yes! The sheer hypocrisy of Republicans actually doing what they promised when they were running for office and asking for the votes! How dare they do what they say! Liberals can't be expected to distort and lie their way around this kind of honesty... it's just not fair!
Click to expand...

Spoken like a good little willfully ignorant Dixie Dunce. Here's how I educated your equally dim buddy PMP...take heed:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ue-colors-and-true-intent&p=789465#post789465
 
Taichiliberal said:
Well, my Post Modern Fool, you once again demonstrate your inability to read carefully and comprehensively, as Sen. Conyers (D-Detroit) explains:

... Worse yet, this bill raises serious constitutional concerns. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits any State from impairing a contract, which is exactly what this legislation does. As the Supreme Court has held in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934), the sanctity of contracts cannot be impaired by a state law “which renders them invalid, or releases or extinguishes them . . . . Not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between the parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.”[/I]

Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.




I don't expect any rational, honest or correct information from our Post Modern Fool and the cohorts he refers to....the above explains why. PMP validates my previous statement to BFGRN.
Click to expand...


I can imagine that Conyers would object to the state interfering with contracts......probably researched that regarding the government's ability to interfere with the contracts his wife negotiated while on the city council in Detroit......the ones she went to jail over.....

lets see....can we think of any laws states pass that "impair obligations under contract"?.....there's a law in Michigan that says a contract entered into with a door to door salesman can be voided within three working days......is that unconstitutional?......there's a law that says the interest rate on a land contract cannot exceed 11%....is that unconstitutional?......there's a law that says a lease cannot contain a confession of judgment.....is that unconstitutional?......

by the way.....the Blaisdell case?....the court upheld the right of the state to cancel the contract......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Well, my Post Modern Fool, you once again demonstrate your inability to read carefully and comprehensively, as Sen. Conyers (D-Detroit) explains:

... Worse yet, this bill raises serious constitutional concerns. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits any State from impairing a contract, which is exactly what this legislation does. As the Supreme Court has held in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934), the sanctity of contracts cannot be impaired by a state law “which renders them invalid, or releases or extinguishes them . . . . Not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between the parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.”

Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.




I don't expect any rational, honest or correct information from our Post Modern Fool and the cohorts he refers to....the above explains why. PMP validates my previous statement to BFGRN.
Click to expand...


I can imagine that Conyers would object to the state interfering with contracts......probably researched that regarding the government's ability to interfere with the contracts his wife negotiated while on the city council in Detroit......the ones she went to jail over.....

So two wrongs make a right? And if all you say is valid (proof please), shouldn't these idiots for doing what you assert is a similar action?

lets see....can we think of any laws states pass that "impair obligations under contract"?.....there's a law in Michigan that says a contract entered into with a door to door salesman can be voided within three working days......is that unconstitutional? No stupid, that's between the individuals, the State does not enter into it. ......there's a law that says the interest rate on a land contract cannot exceed 11%....is that unconstitutional? Nope, that is a law that was passed by City and State legislature...the State is not removing City gov't to change the law, you dope ......there's a law that says a lease cannot contain a confession of judgment.....is that unconstitutional?...... Nope, once again, you keep confusing existing law were the State IS NOT removing City gov't., you stupe.by the way.....the Blaisdell case?....the court upheld the right of the state to cancel the contract......
Click to expand...

Circumstances please, because it's a hell of a difference from rolling in and removing local elected officials to enact a ruling in your favor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top