I don't honestly see how I can even attempt to interact with such flawed reasoning. You assign as conservative that which only 21% of what is considered the conservative party supported and also that which the liberal party, the supposed party of change supported at a much lower rate.
Even when you look at it historically, the Republican party was formed from the Whig party collapsing and the Democratic Party splitting nationally over slavery. The only thing I could draw from the lack of historical understanding demonstrated is that you somehow think Democrats historically stood against slavery and for civil rights when in fact they didn't.
Well, when you're not busy "interacting with flawed reasoning".....
....You could re-read billybobsky's wise words (repeat ad infinitum):
Well, when you're not busy "interacting with flawed reasoning".....
....You could re-read billybobsky's wise words (repeat ad infinitum):
here is a hint:
liberal versus conservative
versus
democrat versus republican
god i hate this...:
Yes except you assign to conservative only the values you dislike in this instance.
If you look at the conservative aspects of the Democratic party (IE traditional or non-changing) It is that they supported states rights AND racism/slavery.
The conservative view of the Republican party regarding black civil rights has ALWAY been to federalize it. They voted so on the Civil Rights Act. They did so when Lincoln mobilized the entire federal government, enacting the draft and going to war with the South to preserve the Union.
It is even true with the homosexual rights issue. Democrats argue state's rights. Bush has proposed a Constitutional amendment.
The "conservative/traditional" view of each party is well established here.
So I don't see how it was conservative in any manner to vote against the Civil Rights Act. You've done nothing more than state you believe it is so. History doesn't back you up. BillyBobsky sighing while using stereotypical thinking doesn't back him up either.
Nick, do you know any good article or two or resource offhand on this topic? I'd really like to familiarize myself with the history of the Civil Rights Movement-- especially the government's response to it. I am ashamed I don't more than I do right now, considering I highly value civil and human rights and may even practice civil rights law someday!
Nick, do you know any good article or two or resource offhand on this topic? I'd really like to familiarize myself with the history of the Civil Rights Movement-- especially the government's response to it. I am ashamed I don't more than I do right now, considering I highly value civil and human rights and may even practice civil rights law someday!
I'll let you find them yourself. You are just as capable at searching and reading as I am. Why would I give you a fish when I would prefer you become a fisherman.
Perhaps you could link to the many flawed sources that gave you the current view you have right now. Share and share alike as they say.
So let me guess. You are saying Al Gore Sr, in not supporting the Civil Rights Act was a conservative and that most Democrats were conservative as well. Also that the majority of Republicans were liberal.
Parse and backpedal all you want. Your stereotypes cannot be justified.
Nick
You are an idiot. I didn't say democrat or republican. I didn't make any stereotypes. I didn't back pedal. I did ask you to read my words. But you failed to do so. I am guessing you have a pea-sized brain which isn't sufficiently large to separate concepts such as political party and actual political leanings. While the two are related they are not one and the same. Try again... Fool.
You are an idiot. I didn't say democrat or republican. I didn't make any stereotypes. I didn't back pedal. I did ask you to read my words. But you failed to do so. I am guessing you have a pea-sized brain which isn't sufficiently large to separate concepts such as political party and actual political leanings. While the two are related they are not one and the same. Try again... Fool.
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Nick is talking out of his ass.
Read some biographies of MLK and other civil rights leaders... Those will point you in the right direction...
No stereotypes hmmm....
Quote:
a conservative during kennedy's presidency would have probably believed that whites were superior to blacks and this necessitated separating the races.
You claim conservatives supported segregation. The group that filibustered the Civil Rights Act had exactly one Republican in it. All the other Senators (I believe it was 17 others) were Democrats.
It isn't that I can't see past party labels. I just don't completely switch them whenever I find it politically expedient. You are essentually claiming what.... that all the Republicans were liberal and some of the Democrats were conservative?!? You can argue that I WON'T see your view when the reality is that your view is either incomprehensible or just factually wrong. You have no factual basis for your statement. It doesn't matter whether the conservative was a Democrat or a Republican. There is no basis for the belief that traditional values included racism or segregation.
Again, your failure to understand impresses me. Yeah, there were a lot of liberal republicans during the 1950's and 60's. Racially liberal. It isn't expediency, its definitional.
You really don't understand that political parties change both human allegiances and left/right leanings. The republican party attracts white racists now, and that was almost unthinkable in the years after the civil war...
The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.
You should also note how much power the Democrats had at the time. The Republican Party was always very good at winning the presidency, but terrible at the local level. As I mentioned there are offices in the South that have still never been held by a Republican. Repubilcans during the time of the Civil Rights Act held, I think it was 33-34 Senate seats. If the Democrats were unified on an issue, the Republicans couldn't even filibuster against it. They were totally out of power and could barely be called a national party.
Again, your failure to understand impresses me. Yeah, there were a lot of liberal republicans during the 1950's and 60's. Racially liberal. It isn't expediency, its definitional.
You really don't understand that political parties change both human allegiances and left/right leanings. The republican party attracts white racists now, and that was almost unthinkable in the years after the civil war...
Try again. Think.
Wow, more unsupported statements. Imagine that from you.
You've repeated this mantra enough to believe it true. That is all the proof you need I suppose.
You claim conservatives supported segregation. The group that filibustered the Civil Rights Act had exactly one Republican in it. All the other Senators (I believe it was 17 others) were Democrats.
It isn't that I can't see past party labels. I just don't completely switch them whenever I find it politically expedient. You are essentually claiming what.... that all the Republicans were liberal and some of the Democrats were conservative?!? You can argue that I WON'T see your view when the reality is that your view is either incomprehensible or just factually wrong. You have no factual basis for your statement. It doesn't matter whether the conservative was a Democrat or a Republican. There is no basis for the belief that traditional values included racism or segregation.
Nick
NICK.
79% of Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would call that a generally progressive vote. I don't know the rationales behind those votes, so I can't say for certain (and you refuse to explain anything, even after politely asking you to share what you've read and what you know about the circumstances of the vote-- and of the Civil Rights Movement in general). 63% of Democrats voted for the bill. Now, if you look at number of votes for the bill, more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of it. At the same time, more Democrats than Republicans voted against the bill. To me, that suggests a very broad-based coalition for the Democrats-- and a potential split in that coalition. I'm not sure who the congressional leaders were for the Civil Rights Act of 1964-- they very well may be Democrats or Republicans. But I think voting against the bill is a very conservative thing to do. I find it shockingly unbelievable that you think "there is no basis for the belief that traditional values included racism or segregation." Where did those values come from?
Thanks, Nick. Did you actually read that? It undermines everything-- and I mean everything you've said about conservatism and traditional values and republicans. Truly, Nick. What's going on here?
79% of Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would call that a generally progressive vote. I don't know the rationales behind those votes, so I can't say for certain (and you refuse to explain anything, even after politely asking you to share what you've read and what you know about the circumstances of the vote-- and of the Civil Rights Movement in general). 63% of Democrats voted for the bill. Now, if you look at number of votes for the bill, more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of it. At the same time, more Democrats than Republicans voted against the bill. To me, that suggests a very broad-based coalition for the Democrats-- and a potential split in that coalition. I'm not sure who the congressional leaders were for the Civil Rights Act of 1964-- they very well may be Democrats or Republicans. But I think voting against the bill is a very conservative thing to do. I find it shockingly unbelievable that you think "there is no basis for the belief that traditional values included racism or segregation." Where did those values come from?
You honestly think that traditional values include racism and segregation? That is unbelieveable in my view.
I'll tell you what Shawn, why don't you define for me what you consider conservative to be. When the Whigs and Democrats all helped create the Constitution to work against tyranny, was that working against traditional values or promoting them?
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't honestly see how I can even attempt to interact with such flawed reasoning. You assign as conservative that which only 21% of what is considered the conservative party supported and also that which the liberal party, the supposed party of change supported at a much lower rate.
Even when you look at it historically, the Republican party was formed from the Whig party collapsing and the Democratic Party splitting nationally over slavery. The only thing I could draw from the lack of historical understanding demonstrated is that you somehow think Democrats historically stood against slavery and for civil rights when in fact they didn't.
Well, when you're not busy "interacting with flawed reasoning".....
....You could re-read billybobsky's wise words (repeat ad infinitum):
here is a hint:
liberal versus conservative
versus
democrat versus republican
god i hate this...:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, when you're not busy "interacting with flawed reasoning".....
....You could re-read billybobsky's wise words (repeat ad infinitum):
here is a hint:
liberal versus conservative
versus
democrat versus republican
god i hate this...:
Yes except you assign to conservative only the values you dislike in this instance.
If you look at the conservative aspects of the Democratic party (IE traditional or non-changing) It is that they supported states rights AND racism/slavery.
The conservative view of the Republican party regarding black civil rights has ALWAY been to federalize it. They voted so on the Civil Rights Act. They did so when Lincoln mobilized the entire federal government, enacting the draft and going to war with the South to preserve the Union.
It is even true with the homosexual rights issue. Democrats argue state's rights. Bush has proposed a Constitutional amendment.
The "conservative/traditional" view of each party is well established here.
So I don't see how it was conservative in any manner to vote against the Civil Rights Act. You've done nothing more than state you believe it is so. History doesn't back you up. BillyBobsky sighing while using stereotypical thinking doesn't back him up either.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Nick, do you know any good article or two or resource offhand on this topic? I'd really like to familiarize myself with the history of the Civil Rights Movement-- especially the government's response to it. I am ashamed I don't more than I do right now, considering I highly value civil and human rights and may even practice civil rights law someday!
I'll let you find them yourself.
Perhaps you could link to the many flawed sources that gave you the current view you have right now.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
So let me guess. You are saying Al Gore Sr, in not supporting the Civil Rights Act was a conservative and that most Democrats were conservative as well. Also that the majority of Republicans were liberal.
Parse and backpedal all you want. Your stereotypes cannot be justified.
Nick
You are an idiot. I didn't say democrat or republican. I didn't make any stereotypes. I didn't back pedal. I did ask you to read my words. But you failed to do so. I am guessing you have a pea-sized brain which isn't sufficiently large to separate concepts such as political party and actual political leanings. While the two are related they are not one and the same. Try again... Fool.
Read some biographies of MLK and other civil rights leaders... Those will point you in the right direction...
Originally posted by billybobsky
You are an idiot. I didn't say democrat or republican. I didn't make any stereotypes. I didn't back pedal. I did ask you to read my words. But you failed to do so. I am guessing you have a pea-sized brain which isn't sufficiently large to separate concepts such as political party and actual political leanings. While the two are related they are not one and the same. Try again... Fool.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Nick is talking out of his ass.
Read some biographies of MLK and other civil rights leaders... Those will point you in the right direction...
No stereotypes hmmm....
a conservative during kennedy's presidency would have probably believed that whites were superior to blacks and this necessitated separating the races.
You claim conservatives supported segregation. The group that filibustered the Civil Rights Act had exactly one Republican in it. All the other Senators (I believe it was 17 others) were Democrats.
It isn't that I can't see past party labels. I just don't completely switch them whenever I find it politically expedient. You are essentually claiming what.... that all the Republicans were liberal and some of the Democrats were conservative?!? You can argue that I WON'T see your view when the reality is that your view is either incomprehensible or just factually wrong. You have no factual basis for your statement. It doesn't matter whether the conservative was a Democrat or a Republican. There is no basis for the belief that traditional values included racism or segregation.
Nick
Try again. Think. Try again. Think. Try again. Think.
You really don't understand that political parties change both human allegiances and left/right leanings. The republican party attracts white racists now, and that was almost unthinkable in the years after the civil war...
Try again. Think.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Thanks, Nick. Just thanks. Really helpful.
Help yourself. Come on you young whippersnapper.
Fine here you go... a pity link.
Civil Rights
Take note of this nice paragraph....
The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.
You should also note how much power the Democrats had at the time. The Republican Party was always very good at winning the presidency, but terrible at the local level. As I mentioned there are offices in the South that have still never been held by a Republican. Repubilcans during the time of the Civil Rights Act held, I think it was 33-34 Senate seats. If the Democrats were unified on an issue, the Republicans couldn't even filibuster against it. They were totally out of power and could barely be called a national party.
Nick
Originally posted by billybobsky
Again, your failure to understand impresses me. Yeah, there were a lot of liberal republicans during the 1950's and 60's. Racially liberal. It isn't expediency, its definitional.
Try again. Think. Try again. Think. Try again. Think.
You really don't understand that political parties change both human allegiances and left/right leanings. The republican party attracts white racists now, and that was almost unthinkable in the years after the civil war...
Try again. Think.
Wow, more unsupported statements. Imagine that from you.
You've repeated this mantra enough to believe it true. That is all the proof you need I suppose.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
No stereotypes hmmm....
You claim conservatives supported segregation. The group that filibustered the Civil Rights Act had exactly one Republican in it. All the other Senators (I believe it was 17 others) were Democrats.
It isn't that I can't see past party labels. I just don't completely switch them whenever I find it politically expedient. You are essentually claiming what.... that all the Republicans were liberal and some of the Democrats were conservative?!? You can argue that I WON'T see your view when the reality is that your view is either incomprehensible or just factually wrong. You have no factual basis for your statement. It doesn't matter whether the conservative was a Democrat or a Republican. There is no basis for the belief that traditional values included racism or segregation.
Nick
NICK.
79% of Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would call that a generally progressive vote. I don't know the rationales behind those votes, so I can't say for certain (and you refuse to explain anything, even after politely asking you to share what you've read and what you know about the circumstances of the vote-- and of the Civil Rights Movement in general). 63% of Democrats voted for the bill. Now, if you look at number of votes for the bill, more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of it. At the same time, more Democrats than Republicans voted against the bill. To me, that suggests a very broad-based coalition for the Democrats-- and a potential split in that coalition. I'm not sure who the congressional leaders were for the Civil Rights Act of 1964-- they very well may be Democrats or Republicans. But I think voting against the bill is a very conservative thing to do. I find it shockingly unbelievable that you think "there is no basis for the belief that traditional values included racism or segregation." Where did those values come from?
I need only one example to make my statement true...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
NICK.
79% of Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I would call that a generally progressive vote. I don't know the rationales behind those votes, so I can't say for certain (and you refuse to explain anything, even after politely asking you to share what you've read and what you know about the circumstances of the vote-- and of the Civil Rights Movement in general). 63% of Democrats voted for the bill. Now, if you look at number of votes for the bill, more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of it. At the same time, more Democrats than Republicans voted against the bill. To me, that suggests a very broad-based coalition for the Democrats-- and a potential split in that coalition. I'm not sure who the congressional leaders were for the Civil Rights Act of 1964-- they very well may be Democrats or Republicans. But I think voting against the bill is a very conservative thing to do. I find it shockingly unbelievable that you think "there is no basis for the belief that traditional values included racism or segregation." Where did those values come from?
You honestly think that traditional values include racism and segregation? That is unbelieveable in my view.
I'll tell you what Shawn, why don't you define for me what you consider conservative to be. When the Whigs and Democrats all helped create the Constitution to work against tyranny, was that working against traditional values or promoting them?
Nick