Cattle Battle Widens

[JakeStarkey]

Thomas Paine.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.

When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir.

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.

These sound like left wing rhetoric to you?

Cherry picking without context only shows your inability to discuss competently the issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let me ask you, Flakey, was there any left wingers as founding fathers?

Give up the present-ism, slow one, it doesn't work.

The proper question would be "who were for national strong government and who were not."

Some were federalists and some were anti-federalists is the answer.

So you can't give me names either!

Thank you for admitting your present-ism is not appropriate for this discussion.

 

[Vigilante]

Most were Christian, from only nominal to dedicated, such as Jay and Henry. The few who were deist or believed in a variety of divine powers and personages were very influential: Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, Allen.

And of those, who presented a plan for the whole to take care of the indigent? Who purposed that earners should pay for the un-working? Who purposed that the gov't should take care of all healthcare?

 

[KNB]

Thomas Paine.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.

When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir.

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.

These sound like left wing rhetoric to you?

Yes. Paine wasn't a Teabagger. He argued against slavery in the 1770s. That is very Progressive.

 

[Vigilante]

Thomas Paine.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.

When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir.

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.

These sound like left wing rhetoric to you?

Cherry picking without context only shows your inability to discuss competently the issue.

Your lack of debating skill is duly noted!

 

[Vigilante]

Thomas Paine.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.

When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir.

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.

These sound like left wing rhetoric to you?

Yes. Paine wasn't a Teabagger. He argued against slavery in the 1770s. That is very Progressive.

The same as Republicans did with the Civil Rights act of 1964! Thank you for the acknowledgement!

 

[KNB]

No, Mary. "Republicans" did not support the Civil Rights Act. PROGRESSIVES supported the Civil Rights Act. You have to make that distinction to be historically correct because there were racist Southern Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act, meaning that "Republicans" did not in general support the Civil Rights Act.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Vigilante is guilty of present-ism, want to judge the past by today's values. That is worthless.

Their world is not our world.

Only fools would run the government by the world of 1791.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Mary. "Republicans" did not support the Civil Rights Act. PROGRESSIVES supported the Civil Rights Act. You have to make that distinction to be historically correct because there were racist Southern Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act, meaning that "Republicans" did not in general support the Civil Rights Act.

Progressive, liberal, moderate, and conservative Dems and Pubs from the north and west supported Civil Rights, while the southern reactonary Pubs and Dems did not.

The division was philosophy and decency and geography, not party.

And since Vigilante knows not history, philosophy, geography and is not decent, well, there you go.

 

[rdean]

When you think about it, it's really no surprise. Republicans protect the rights of thieves on Wall Street. Of course they protect the rights of thieves in Nevada.

 

[rdean]

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice.

When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir.

We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in.

These sound like left wing rhetoric to you?

Yes. Paine wasn't a Teabagger. He argued against slavery in the 1770s. That is very Progressive.

The same as Republicans did with the Civil Rights act of 1964! Thank you for the acknowledgement!

You think Lincoln was a "confederate"?

 

[Vigilante]

No, Mary. "Republicans" did not support the Civil Rights Act. PROGRESSIVES supported the Civil Rights Act. You have to make that distinction to be historically correct because there were racist Southern Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act, meaning that "Republicans" did not in general support the Civil Rights Act.

Do we need to put up the % vote by party, or are you intellectually honest to surrender that fact? Being that there were Democrats had a roughly 30-45% larger majority than the Republicans. Oh Hell, as even YOU can see the % of Republicans for the act was much greater than Democrats!

The original House version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[20]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

 

[Vigilante]

Yes. Paine wasn't a Teabagger. He argued against slavery in the 1770s. That is very Progressive.

The same as Republicans did with the Civil Rights act of 1964! Thank you for the acknowledgement!

You think Lincoln was a "confederate"?

What?

 

[KNB]

No, Mary. "Republicans" did not support the Civil Rights Act. PROGRESSIVES supported the Civil Rights Act. You have to make that distinction to be historically correct because there were racist Southern Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act, meaning that "Republicans" did not in general support the Civil Rights Act.

Do we need to put up the % vote by party, or are you intellectually honest to surrender that fact? Being that there were Democrats had a roughly 30-45% larger majority than the Republicans. Oh Hell, as even YOU can see the % of Republicans for the act was much greater than Democrats!

The original House version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[20]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Okay, dipshit. By your own admission, across the board, more Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans. Now tell everyone how leftist Democrats are racist and Republicans freed the slaves.

Fucking idiot.

 

[Vigilante]

When you think about it, it's really no surprise. Republicans protect the rights of thieves on Wall Street. Of course they protect the rights of thieves in Nevada.

Is that why the FED has gone into all those QE's that have kept the stock market afloat under the current regime?

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, Mary. "Republicans" did not support the Civil Rights Act. PROGRESSIVES supported the Civil Rights Act. You have to make that distinction to be historically correct because there were racist Southern Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act, meaning that "Republicans" did not in general support the Civil Rights Act.

Do we need to put up the % vote by party, or are you intellectually honest to surrender that fact? Being that there were Democrats had a roughly 30-45% larger majority than the Republicans. Oh Hell, as even YOU can see the % of Republicans for the act was much greater than Democrats!

The original House version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[20]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Okay, dipshit. By your own admission, across the board, more Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans. Now tell everyone how leftist Democrats are racist and Republicans freed the slaves.

Fucking idiot.

Okay, Einstein, only one half of your arithmetic pans out. But percentage wise, more Republicans did vote for the abolition of slavery. A greater proportion of them voted as a party to free the slaves than the Democrats.

Now, tell the class how the Democrats freed the slaves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am glad that Vigilante agreed that the north and west senators and representatives from both parties put down the far right southern conservatives of both parties on civil rights.

I am glad Vigilante gave up his no information argument on the Founders.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Okay, Einstein, only one half of your arithmetic pans out. But percentage wise, more Republicans did vote for the abolition of slavery. A greater proportion of them voted as a party to free the slaves than the Democrats.

Now, tell the class how the Democrats freed the slaves.

That was neither the question nor the assertion.

 

[Vigilante]

No, Mary. "Republicans" did not support the Civil Rights Act. PROGRESSIVES supported the Civil Rights Act. You have to make that distinction to be historically correct because there were racist Southern Republicans who opposed the Civil Rights Act, meaning that "Republicans" did not in general support the Civil Rights Act.

Do we need to put up the % vote by party, or are you intellectually honest to surrender that fact? Being that there were Democrats had a roughly 30-45% larger majority than the Republicans. Oh Hell, as even YOU can see the % of Republicans for the act was much greater than Democrats!

The original House version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[20]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Okay, dipshit. By your own admission, across the board, more Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans. Now tell everyone how leftist Democrats are racist and Republicans freed the slaves.

Fucking idiot.

Of course you fucking idiot, the house had 240+ Democrats members and 170+ Republican members and the Senate had 67 Democratic senators to 33 Republican Senators, BY % (do you know what that % sign means?) Republican voted for the passage OVER 80% on all Votes, and the Democrats never got over 69%! Damn, you sure are stupid with MATH!

 

[KNB]

Do we need to put up the % vote by party, or are you intellectually honest to surrender that fact? Being that there were Democrats had a roughly 30-45% larger majority than the Republicans. Oh Hell, as even YOU can see the % of Republicans for the act was much greater than Democrats!

The original House version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[20]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[19]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Okay, dipshit. By your own admission, across the board, more Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act than Republicans. Now tell everyone how leftist Democrats are racist and Republicans freed the slaves.

Fucking idiot.

Okay, Einstein, only one half of your arithmetic pans out. But percentage wise, more Republicans did vote for the abolition of slavery. A greater proportion of them voted as a party to free the slaves than the Democrats.

Now, tell the class how the Democrats freed the slaves.

Okay, Socrates. Go take a history class. "Slavery was abolished in 1964." Good job.