Perspective: How It All Happened

[Meister]

It's curious that PC, who is an immigrant, would choose to come to a country that she so obviously and openly hates.

'splain?

I don't see that from her at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's curious that PC, who is an immigrant, would choose to come to a country that she so obviously and openly hates.

'splain?

I don't see that from her at all.

Thread after thread she posts contain attacks on the most fundamental of American values and institutions. Learn to read.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas Sowell wrote this in 2003. I dare anybody posting in this thread to find any credible information anywhere that can refute a word of it:

Excerpt:

Most of the letters and e-mails I receive are a pleasure to read and my only regret is that I cannot answer even one-tenth of them. However, there are certain e-mails and letters that repeat the same fallacies again and again. Let me try to answer one of those fallacies now, once and for all.

One of the silly things that gets said repeatedly is that I should not be against affirmative action because I have myself benefitted from it.

Think about it: I am 73 years old. There was no affirmative action when I went to college — or to graduate school, for that matter. There wasn't even a Civil Rights Act of 1964 when I began my academic career in 1962.

Moreover, there is nothing that I have accomplished in my education or my career that wasn't accomplished by other blacks before me -- and long before affirmative action. Getting a degree from Harvard? The first black man graduated from Harvard in 1870.

Becoming a black economist? There was a black professor of economics at the University of Chicago when I first arrived there as a graduate student.

Writing a newspaper column? George Schuyler wrote newspaper columns, magazine articles, and books before I was born.

A recent silly e-mail declared that I wouldn't even be able to vote in this year's California election if there hadn't been a Voting Rights Act of 1965. I have been voting ever since I was 21 years old — in 1951.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were necessary for some people in some places. But making these things the cause of the rise of most blacks only betrays an ignorance of history.

The most dramatic rise of blacks out of poverty occurred before the civil rights movement of the 1960s. That's right — before. But politicians, activists and the intelligentsia have spread so much propaganda that many Americans, black and white, are unaware of the facts.

There is a lot of political mileage to be gotten by convincing blacks that they owe everything to the government and could not make it in this world otherwise. Dependency plus paranoia equals votes. But blacks made it in this world before the government paid them any attention.

Nor has the economic rise of blacks been speeded up by civil rights legislation. More blacks rose into professional ranks in the five years preceding passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years after its passage. . . .

More here:
Thomas Sowell

The sad thing is that most liberals won't even read what he wrote, much less make any attempt to understand what he is saying. And I fully expect some unkind and hateful remarks directed at him personally. And perhaps me too.

That is because most liberals are so desperate to believe that it is liberalism that has raised up the black man, and is responsible for none of the black man's problems or situation today. And because they are so eager to heap all the black man's problems upon the eeeeevul conservatives and Republicans.

Like PC, I sometimes despair that we can ever regain the intellectual honesty that was once commonplace in this country. There is nothing intellectually honest or honest in any other way in ideological extremism wherever it is found.

Unless more people are able to learn that, I think by the next generation, this nation will bear no resemblance to the USA we have known and loved.

 

[Meister]

It's curious that PC, who is an immigrant, would choose to come to a country that she so obviously and openly hates.

'splain?

I don't see that from her at all.

Thread after thread she posts contain attacks on the most fundamental of American values and institutions. Learn to read.

Which American values do you speak of?
Or, is it your liberal views that she attacks, Carb?
Learn to differentiate between the two.

 

[Jarhead]

It's curious that PC, who is an immigrant, would choose to come to a country that she so obviously and openly hates.

'splain?

I don't see that from her at all.

Thread after thread she posts contain attacks on the most fundamental of American values and institutions. Learn to read.

Thats how you see it becuase you not only believe strongly in your ideology (a compliment), but you see anyone with a different ideology as "not in the mainstream" (an insult).

I do not see one with your ideology as hating America...nor do I see you as not believing in the consitution. I see you as one with an ideology that allows you to interpret the consitution differently than I do.

And neither one of us is right and neither one of us is wrong.

Very much like religion.

I suggest you be a bit more tolerant of those that think differently than you.

 

[BlindBoo]

"The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans."


Isn't it amusing how many of the things you fervently believe, actually have no basis in fact?

PC, it is not a matter of belief. Since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 the Republicans began to win more and more in the South and today it is their stronghold.

The south voted democratic at all levels for the next one hundred years. In 1948 Strom Thurmond, a Democratic Senator from South Carolina, ran for president as a "Dixiecrat" after disagreeing with Truman over civil rights. Truman won anyway, despite Thurmond's dividing the Democratic vote. This let the Democrats know they could win without southern votes. Then in the 60s Democrats Kennedy and Johnson angered the south by forcing desegregation and civil rights on the south (ignoring identical problems in the north), and the south turned Republican, joining the "party of Lincoln". Ideologically the parties had traded places in the century since the Civil War.

The voting patterns of the southern states after the civil war was nicknamed

I have a question:
Now, what would/should the conclusion about your knowledge, your sources, your indoctrination be.....

....if I show that you are wrong?


Would it prove that you have been....misled?
And, if so.....about how many other of your deeply held beliefs would that pertain?


1. First of all, the Democrats didn’t pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That bill, along with every civil rights bill for the preceding century, was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats.


2. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994.
"GOP Poised to Reap Redistricting Rewards" by Michael Barone on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


a. Between ’48 and ’88, Republicans never won a majority of the Dixiecrat states, outside of two 49-state landslides. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their championing abortion, gays in the military, Christian-bashing, springing criminals, attacks on guns, dovish foreign policy, ‘save the whales/kill the humans environmentalism….certainly not race!

a. Rather than the Republicans winning the Dixiecrat vote, the Dixiecrats simply died out. By contrast, Democrats kept winning the alleged “segregationist” states into the ‘90’s. If states were voting for Goldwater out of racism, what of Carter’s 1976 sweep of all the Goldwater states?
Coulter, "Mugged"




Care to answer my question?

Most of the Southern democrats voted against the Civil Right act and were not tossed by their constituents. However over time they retired and were replaced by Republicans. The Southern States have become a Republican stronghold.

1. Is factually incorrect. In the House the vote was 152 Democrats for and 138 Republicans for. IN the Senate it was 46 Dems for and 27 Reps for. AS I stated earlier it was a North V South thing, again.

You should be proud of the Republicans Southern strategy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"First of all, the Democrats didn’t pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That bill, along with every civil rights bill for the preceding century, was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats." Flat lie. House Dems 153 to 91, Senate Dems 46 to 21; House Pubs 136 to 35, Senate Pubs 27 to 6 The vote was northern and west Dems and Pubs against southern Dems and Pubs.

"Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act." Partially correct at state level, but in national presidential elections from 1968 to 1988, excluding Carter's 1976 southern smash victory, the presidential electors in the Deep South went 54 to 1 for the GOP.

Keep doing this poor research and analysis, and keep getting caught out.

 

[Foxfyre]

'splain?

I don't see that from her at all.

Thread after thread she posts contain attacks on the most fundamental of American values and institutions. Learn to read.

Which American values do you speak of?
Or, is it your liberal views that she attacks, Carb?
Learn to differentiate between the two.

I wish Admin would give us a forum in which we were not allowed to mention or comment on another member or refer to a political party or ideology at all unless the party or ideology was the topic of the thread. It would be an interesting social experiement to see if liberals could discuss ANY subject in which they had to focus strictly on the subject.

PC has given us another thoughtful and important discussion topic. And so far most aren't discussing it. They seem to want to demonize her for bringing it up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre, the reactionary right would fall apart under the rules you want. So would the far left.

 

[Plasmaball]

So what was the Op's point? That the Dems of yesterday are somehow the one of today? Don't forget your roots? Some bias the Op has against the left because her party can do no wrong? Or did she just want to listen to herself again?

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, the reactionary right would fall apart under the rules you want. So would the far left.

Well so would you Jake since you were one who I thought particularly hateful and personally inappropriate early on in this thread. Which one of those groups do you belong to?

 

[Meister]

*”These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”


“I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”
~Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)


Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party
The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
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%)


Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

'splain?

I don't see that from her at all.

Thread after thread she posts contain attacks on the most fundamental of American values and institutions. Learn to read.

Which American values do you speak of?
Or, is it your liberal views that she attacks, Carb?
Learn to differentiate between the two.

My liberal views are mainstream American values. I hold very few views that are not supported by a majority or a plurality of Americans.

 

[bendog]

PC, it is not a matter of belief. Since the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 the Republicans began to win more and more in the South and today it is their stronghold.

The south voted democratic at all levels for the next one hundred years. In 1948 Strom Thurmond, a Democratic Senator from South Carolina, ran for president as a "Dixiecrat" after disagreeing with Truman over civil rights. Truman won anyway, despite Thurmond's dividing the Democratic vote. This let the Democrats know they could win without southern votes. Then in the 60s Democrats Kennedy and Johnson angered the south by forcing desegregation and civil rights on the south (ignoring identical problems in the north), and the south turned Republican, joining the "party of Lincoln". Ideologically the parties had traded places in the century since the Civil War.

The voting patterns of the southern states after the civil war was nicknamed

I have a question:
Now, what would/should the conclusion about your knowledge, your sources, your indoctrination be.....

....if I show that you are wrong?


Would it prove that you have been....misled?
And, if so.....about how many other of your deeply held beliefs would that pertain?


1. First of all, the Democrats didn’t pass the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. That bill, along with every civil rights bill for the preceding century, was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats.


2. Second, the South kept voting for Democrats for decades after that 1964 act. And, btw, Democrats continued to win a plurality of votes in southern congressional elections for the next 30 years…right up to 1994.
"GOP Poised to Reap Redistricting Rewards" by Michael Barone on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent


a. Between ’48 and ’88, Republicans never won a majority of the Dixiecrat states, outside of two 49-state landslides. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their championing abortion, gays in the military, Christian-bashing, springing criminals, attacks on guns, dovish foreign policy, ‘save the whales/kill the humans environmentalism….certainly not race!

a. Rather than the Republicans winning the Dixiecrat vote, the Dixiecrats simply died out. By contrast, Democrats kept winning the alleged “segregationist” states into the ‘90’s. If states were voting for Goldwater out of racism, what of Carter’s 1976 sweep of all the Goldwater states?
Coulter, "Mugged"




Care to answer my question?

Most of the Southern democrats voted against the Civil Right act and were not tossed by their constituents. However over time they retired and were replaced by Republicans. The Southern States have become a Republican stronghold.

1. Is factually incorrect. In the House the vote was 152 Democrats for and 138 Republicans for. IN the Senate it was 46 Dems for and 27 Reps for. AS I stated earlier it was a North V South thing, again.

You should be proud of the Republicans Southern strategy.

It's a little more complicated than that. see especially pages 40-45. It's true that the modern Miss gop party opposed federal premptive civil rights legislation. However, so did Goldwater, who was not a racist. Nor was Reagan.

On page 45, Yerger is quoted responding to a 1960 question from NBC's reporter 'are negros welcome in the state gop." Answer, "if they're conservative they are."

http://books.google.com/books?id=av...6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Wirt A. Yerger, Jr&f=false

The common belief of Goldwater, Yerger, Trent Lott, Reagan and Haley Barbour is that government shouldn't be in the race preference biz, for ANY race, and it is not in the best interest of any business owner to refuse to do biz with anyone simply because they're of a different race, and utlimately those fools will lose business share to people like Wal-Mart who will serve anyone.

 

[Meister]

Thread after thread she posts contain attacks on the most fundamental of American values and institutions. Learn to read.

Which American values do you speak of?
Or, is it your liberal views that she attacks, Carb?
Learn to differentiate between the two.

My liberal views are mainstream American values. I hold very few views that are not supported by a majority or a plurality of Americans.

Yeah...sure, whatever you say, Carb.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I thought your comments were not objective and critically thoughtful.

I know how that translates in your mind, and that is a shame, because I think you are the best person on the Thread.

I think I belong to the right of center to left of center mainstream, and I believe you belong to the far reactionary wing of the American political spectrum.

But . . . I would love a forum where no one may dare attack another personally and must use objective evidence and critical think. I agree with that 100%, and let the Mods take no prisoners.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Civil Rights bill was passed with a coalition of Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats. They defeated the coalition of Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans. Which is ironic because a hundred years ago the southern population was hell bent on killing as many Republicans activist (giving Blacks voting rights) as possible.

The most damning quote Lyndon Johnson ever uttered was this one:

"I'll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years!"

So I doubt your explanation holds any weight as you believe it does. Trying to blame Republicans for this is a futile effort.

 

[NYcarbineer]

*”These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”


“I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”
~Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)


Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party
The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
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%)


Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You do understand that the Southern Democrats of those times were ideologically CONSERVATIVE right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

*”These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”


“I’ll have them ******* voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”
~Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)


Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party
The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
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%)


Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you for reaffirming that the vote was Northern and Western Dem and Pub against Southern Dem and Pubs.

Oh, it's too bad you can't really document in a LBJ primary source that he ever said that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Civil Rights bill was passed with a coalition of Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats. They defeated the coalition of Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. The southern population of course blamed President Johnson, a Democrat, and soon began voting for Republicans. Which is ironic because a hundred years ago the southern population was hell bent on killing as many Republicans activist (giving Blacks voting rights) as possible.

The most damning quote Lyndon Johnson ever uttered was this one:

"I'll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years!"

So I doubt your explanation holds any weight as you believe it does. Trying to blame Republicans for this is a futile effort.

Republicans are a party. Conservatism is an ideology. It was from the ideology of conservatism that the Civil Rights Act was opposed.