The history of left-wing policies

[KNB]

It's not class envy to wonder why record corporate profits are sitting in offshore bank accounts instead of paying living wages to the employees who make these companies so rich.

So this leaves many unanswered questions:

[*]What constitutes a "living wage" in your mind?

A Federal minimum wage at least adjusted for inflation, because without a Federally mandated minimum wage, employers will pay their employees even less than $7.25/hr. That's why there is a Federal minimum wage in the first place.

[*]Why don't you provide those "living wage" jobs instead of demanding someone else do it? No, really [MENTION=45917]KNB[/MENTION]? Too greedy? Too lazy? Why?

Because I don't have trillions of dollars in Switzerland. Billionaires do. The 1% "job creators" who aren't creating any jobs.

[*]If those people feel they aren't receiving a "living wage" why don't they go into business for themselves? Nobody gave Bill Gates a job - he created one for himself. Nobody gave Steve Jobs a job - he created one for himself. Nobody gave Larry Ellison a job - he created one for himself. Nobody gave Michael Dell a job - he created one for himself. Nobody gave Mark Zuckerberg a job - he created one for himself.

I could literally go on all day but this is more than enough to prove what a tool you are, what a hypocrite you are, and what a moron you are.

And you think that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, etc. got so rich entirely on their own, right? And now combined they have more money than God and yet unemployment numbers are still high and full-time minimum wage employees are standing in line at food banks.

Bill Gates has enough money to pay thousands of unemployed people salary plus benefits to just walk around in circles all day. He doesn't because he's full of shit like the rest of the 1%. Nothing is trickling down. Why is that so difficult to understand? Reaganomics doesn't work if record corporate profits aren't reinvested in the People who made those companies so rich.

And what the fuck is "Marxist" about 95% of the financial gains going to the richest 1% of the population? Can you fucking Teabagger Republicans even answer that question? Of course you can't, because you don't know what the fuck Marxism is. You just hate Obama because he's black. Turn off Glenn Beck.

 

[Bfgrn]

Both philosophies restrict freedom, socialist or capitalism. You can't leave the country without their permission, and if a male doesn't register for the draft he can be fined and/or imprisoned. With socialism there are some safety nets, God bless FDR and LBJ. Under capitalism you have the freedom to starve or die from lack of health care without state interference.

What are you talking about? I went into Canada numerous times with no passport, I think you need it to get in now though. Probably the same with Mexico. Nothing about capitalism controls that or the draft, which we haven't had for decades.

Spinning facts don't make the spin true. You are trying to rewrite history to suit your agenda of hate and intolerance.

WHERE is the spin pea brain? The 1964 Civil Rights Act was proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, authored by Democrats, passed by northern Democrats and Republicans and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

Unfortunately, JFK wouldn't fit in with today's Democrats. As soon as he piped up about lowering taxes they would disown him. But onto your spin:

Steele says GOP fought hard for civil rights bills in 1960s | PolitiFact
The Civil Rights Act -- which is best known for barring discrimination in public accommodations -- passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964 by a margin of 290-130. When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

The Civil Rights Act -- which is best known for barring discrimination in public accommodations -- passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964 by a margin of 290-130. When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

So it's clear that Republican support for both bills was deep. But to make sure we weren't missing something, we contacted a number of scholars who have studied that period, asking whether Republicans were dragged into supporting the bills reluctantly, or whether they took frontline roles in advancing them.

Generally speaking, the scholars we talked to agreed that Republicans were important players, usually working cooperatively with Johnson and other leading Democrats.

AND...what you LEFT OUT to get to your last sentence.

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).

The primary reason that Republican support was higher than Democratic support -- even though the legislation was pushed hard by a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson -- is that the opposition to the bill primarily came from Southern lawmakers. In the mid 1960s, the South was overwhelmingly Democratic -- a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction, when the Republican Party was the leading force against slavery and its legacy. Because of this history, the Democratic Party in the 1960s was divided between Southern Democrats, most of whom opposed civil rights legislation, and Democrats from outside the South who more often than not supported it.

This pattern showed clearly in the House vote. Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of Republicans -- 141 for, just four against -- while Southern Democrats were strongly opposed, by a margin of 11 yeas to 92 nays.

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just like I SAID...

Support for the Civil Rights Act was divided by REGION, not party. The conservative south against the liberal north.

There was not ONE southern conservative from either party that supported the bill. Fast forward to today, and it is still liberals who support the rights of minorities. Examples, gays, Hispanics and Muslims.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

 

[Iceweasel]

Just like I SAID...

Support for the Civil Rights Act was divided by REGION, not party. The conservative south against the liberal north.

Just like I said, you are spinning. The northern Republicans were liberals? Wow. Back that one up.

There was not ONE southern conservative from either party that supported the bill. Fast forward to today, and it is still liberals who support the rights of minorities. Examples, gays, Hispanics and Muslims.

You are full of crap. Conservatives don't support the rights of minorities?

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

LOL. You are waaaaay out there. Which side wants more regulation and government? You're prejudiced. Just like the people you say you hate.

 

[1776]

Reality is the liberals in DC today follow the same principles of left-wing goons in Russia, China, Cuba, etc through the years with their socialist experiments.

"Spreading the wealth" is the theme that just flows from the mouth of Lenin, Mao, Castro and Obama.

 

[KNB]

Reality is the liberals in DC today follow the same principles of left-wing goons in Russia, China, Cuba, etc through the years with their socialist experiments.

"Spreading the wealth" is the theme that just flows from the mouth of Lenin, Mao, Castro and Obama.

It's hilarious and infuriating to continuously hear the same mangled bullshit from asshole FOX-watching Republicans, and the best/worst/funniest/most enraging part is that these fucking talking monkeys are too stupid to admit how god-damned idiotic they are.

What part of "95% of economic gains since 2009 went to the 1%" is Marxist? Please explain how Obama is taking all of the money from the 1% and giving it away if the 1% made 95% of the money since Obama has been in office.

Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1% - Sep. 15, 2013
95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%. Here's What That Really Means. - Business Insider
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf
Inequality: Growing apart | The Economist
Top 1% took in record share of income in 2012- MSN Money
BBC News - US income inequality at record high
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40411.pdf

 

[Bfgrn]

Just like I SAID...

Support for the Civil Rights Act was divided by REGION, not party. The conservative south against the liberal north.

Just like I said, you are spinning. The northern Republicans were liberals? Wow. Back that one up.

There was not ONE southern conservative from either party that supported the bill. Fast forward to today, and it is still liberals who support the rights of minorities. Examples, gays, Hispanics and Muslims.

You are full of crap. Conservatives don't support the rights of minorities?

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

LOL. You are waaaaay out there. Which side wants more regulation and government? You're prejudiced. Just like the people you say you hate.

Conservatives DON'T support the rights of minorities. WHERE are all these "minority supporting" conservative advocates for the rights of gays, Hispanics, Muslims or ANY minority?

There AREN'T any...NONE

 

[Iceweasel]

Conservatives DON'T support the rights of minorities. WHERE are all these "minority supporting" conservative advocates for the rights of gays, Hispanics, Muslims or ANY minority?

There AREN'T any...NONE

Contrary to what Himmler said, repeating lies don't make them true.

 

[aaronleland]

The party realignment that took place following the Voting Rights Act is historical fact. Explaining that and the Southern Strategy to those too thick-skulled to acknowledge history is getting old.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By enfranchising racial and language minorities, the Voting Rights Act facilitated a political realignment of the Democratic and Republican parties. Between 1890 and 1965, minority disfranchisement allowed conservative Southern Democrats to dominate virtually all of Southern politics. After Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, newly enfranchised racial minorities began to vote for liberal Democratic candidates throughout the South, and Southern white conservatives began to switch their party registration from Democrat to Republican en masse.[126]:290 These dual trends caused the two parties to ideologically polarize, with the Democratic Party becoming more liberal and the Republican Party becoming more conservative. They also created competition between the two parties,[126]:290 which Republicans capitalized on by implementing the Southern Strategy;[127] eventually, the Democratic Party's historical control of Southern politics was broken.[126]:290 Over the subsequent decades, the creation of majority-minority districts to remedy Voting Rights Act violations also contributed to these developments. By packing liberal-leaning racial minorities into small numbers of majority-minority districts, large numbers of surrounding districts became more solidly white, conservative, and Republican. While this increased the elected representation of minorities as intended, it also decreased white Democratic representation and increased the representation of Republicans.[126]:292 By the mid-1990s, these trends culminated in a political realignment: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party became more ideologically polarized and defined as liberal and conservative parties, respectively; and both parties competed for electoral success in the South,[126]:294 with the Republican Party controlling most of Southern politics.[23]:203

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives DON'T support the rights of minorities. WHERE are all these "minority supporting" conservative advocates for the rights of gays, Hispanics, Muslims or ANY minority?

There AREN'T any...NONE

Contrary to what Himmler said, repeating lies don't make them true.

OK, NAME these "minority supporting" conservative advocates for the rights of gays, Hispanics, Muslims or ANY minority?

 

[Political Junky]

It is VERY realistic to use the FACTS of the vote on the bill and the reality of the 1960's

Spinning facts don't make the spin true. You are trying to rewrite history to suit your agenda of hate and intolerance.

The Right has done a hell of a job of rewriting history, and some on the Right even believe it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are aware that your anti-abortion religious bullshit cannot become law in the United States, don't you? Because of the 1st Amendment.

Can you prove your constitutional prowess by explaining how abortion and the first Amendment are linked? You do realize that religious speech is protected under the first Amendment too, right?

Let's go, you constitutional scholar wannabe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is VERY realistic to use the FACTS of the vote on the bill and the reality of the 1960's

Spinning facts don't make the spin true. You are trying to rewrite history to suit your agenda of hate and intolerance.

The Right has done a hell of a job of rewriting history, and some on the Right even believe it.

Oh? And how much part has the left played in trying to rewrite history? Given how gullible you liberals are, you'll believe anything that comes out of Obama's mouth. His attempt to rewrite history is by rewriting a 5 year old healthcare law. That's pathetic.

 

[1776]

Asswipe, socialists always support their fellow rich elites while fucking over the middle class.

There have always been "rich" people in the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea....they just made everyone else poor during the process of implementing socialism.

Obamacare is one example where middle class people are losing their current medical insurance and doctor then being forced to pay for higher medical insurance with limited options...squeezing the middle class is the start.

Oh, go fuck yourself, inbred.

Reality is the liberals in DC today follow the same principles of left-wing goons in Russia, China, Cuba, etc through the years with their socialist experiments.

"Spreading the wealth" is the theme that just flows from the mouth of Lenin, Mao, Castro and Obama.

It's hilarious and infuriating to continuously hear the same mangled bullshit from asshole FOX-watching Republicans, and the best/worst/funniest/most enraging part is that these fucking talking monkeys are too stupid to admit how god-damned idiotic they are.

What part of "95% of economic gains since 2009 went to the 1%" is Marxist? Please explain how Obama is taking all of the money from the 1% and giving it away if the 1% made 95% of the money since Obama has been in office.

Some 95% of 2009-2012 Income Gains Went to Wealthiest 1% - Real Time Economics - WSJ
Obama admits 95% of income gains gone to top 1% - Sep. 15, 2013
95% Of Income Gains Since 2009 Went To The Top 1%. Here's What That Really Means. - Business Insider
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf
Inequality: Growing apart | The Economist
Top 1% took in record share of income in 2012- MSN Money
BBC News - US income inequality at record high
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40411.pdf

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is VERY realistic to use the FACTS of the vote on the bill and the reality of the 1960's

Spinning facts don't make the spin true. You are trying to rewrite history to suit your agenda of hate and intolerance.

WHERE is the spin pea brain? The 1964 Civil Rights Act was proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, authored by Democrats, passed by northern Democrats and Republicans and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

Republicans didn't try to filibuster it, wiseguy. In fact, they have done more for civil rights in America than Democrats have ever done. If you want to get technical, a Republican set the ball rolling on civil rights in the Modern Era, by proposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That Republican was none other than Attorney General Herbert Brownell, who presided from 1953 to 1957 and was the GOP chairman from 1944 to 1946.

In 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed another Civil Rights Act, which amended the 1957 law. So, you have to ask yourself something: just what do Democrats really have to offer in the way of Civil Rights? Republicans laid the foundation for civil rights as far back as 1863 by passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery.

No sir, you are spinning history. Moreover, you don't know your history, as I have just pointed out.

 

[Moonglow]

Just like I SAID...

Support for the Civil Rights Act was divided by REGION, not party. The conservative south against the liberal north.

Just like I said, you are spinning. The northern Republicans were liberals? Wow. Back that one up.
You are full of crap. Conservatives don't support the rights of minorities?

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

LOL. You are waaaaay out there. Which side wants more regulation and government? You're prejudiced. Just like the people you say you hate.

Conservatives DON'T support the rights of minorities. WHERE are all these "minority supporting" conservative advocates for the rights of gays, Hispanics, Muslims or ANY minority?

There AREN'T any...NONE

yes there is, Log Cabin GOP members are gay.

 

[rightwinger]

Spinning facts don't make the spin true. You are trying to rewrite history to suit your agenda of hate and intolerance.

WHERE is the spin pea brain? The 1964 Civil Rights Act was proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, authored by Democrats, passed by northern Democrats and Republicans and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

Republicans didn't try to filibuster it, wiseguy. In fact, they have done more for civil rights in America than Democrats have ever done. If you want to get technical, a Republican set the ball rolling on civil rights in the Modern Era, by proposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That Republican was none other than Attorney General Herbert Brownell, who presided from 1953 to 1957 and was the GOP chairman from 1944 to 1946.

In 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed another Civil Rights Act, which amended the 1957 law. So, you have to ask yourself something: just what do Democrats really have to offer in the way of Civil Rights? Republicans laid the foundation for civil rights as far back as 1863 by passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery.

No sir, you are spinning history. Moreover, you don't know your history, as I have just pointed out.

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?
What did they do for women's rights?
What did they do for the rights of the handicapped?
What did they do for gay rights?

It's called being on the wrong side of history

 

[TemplarKormac]

Conservatives DON'T support the rights of minorities. WHERE are all these "minority supporting" conservative advocates for the rights of gays, Hispanics, Muslims or ANY minority?

There AREN'T any...NONE

Contrary to what Himmler said, repeating lies don't make them true.

OK, NAME these "minority supporting" conservative advocates for the rights of gays, Hispanics, Muslims or ANY minority?

Do you even know what a "minority" is? Is it just some label you slap on anyone who supports a liberal ideal? Or is this some sort of demographical stereotype?

 

[Moonglow]

Contrary to what Himmler said, repeating lies don't make them true.

OK, NAME these "minority supporting" conservative advocates for the rights of gays, Hispanics, Muslims or ANY minority?

Do you even know what a "minority" is? Is it just some label you slap on anyone who supports a liberal ideal? Or is this some sort of demographical stereotype?

Boy do you cut a rug around the subject!

 

[TemplarKormac]

WHERE is the spin pea brain? The 1964 Civil Rights Act was proposed by President John F. Kennedy in 1963, authored by Democrats, passed by northern Democrats and Republicans and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

Republicans didn't try to filibuster it, wiseguy. In fact, they have done more for civil rights in America than Democrats have ever done. If you want to get technical, a Republican set the ball rolling on civil rights in the Modern Era, by proposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That Republican was none other than Attorney General Herbert Brownell, who presided from 1953 to 1957 and was the GOP chairman from 1944 to 1946.

In 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed another Civil Rights Act, which amended the 1957 law. So, you have to ask yourself something: just what do Democrats really have to offer in the way of Civil Rights? Republicans laid the foundation for civil rights as far back as 1863 by passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery.

No sir, you are spinning history. Moreover, you don't know your history, as I have just pointed out.

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?
What did they do for women's rights?
What did they do for the rights of the handicapped?
What did they do for gay rights?

It's called being on the wrong side of history

Your argument is irrelevant to my argument. If it weren't for Republicans, there would be no racial equality in America. I've cited three examples of what Republicans have done for Civil Rights in the past 140 years. Limiting their so-called inaction to a specific time frame is a well known tactic to paint them as having done nothing for Civil Rights. When in reality, they laid the foundation for Civil Rights, as far back as 1863.

Have a seat. It's called being wrong altogether, rightwinger. Keep your ignoratio elenchi arguments to yourself.

 

[Moonglow]

Republicans didn't try to filibuster it, wiseguy. In fact, they have done more for civil rights in America than Democrats have ever done. If you want to get technical, a Republican set the ball rolling on civil rights in the Modern Era, by proposing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That Republican was none other than Attorney General Herbert Brownell, who presided from 1953 to 1957 and was the GOP chairman from 1944 to 1946.

In 1960, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed another Civil Rights Act, which amended the 1957 law. So, you have to ask yourself something: just what do Democrats really have to offer in the way of Civil Rights? Republicans laid the foundation for civil rights as far back as 1863 by passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery.

No sir, you are spinning history. Moreover, you don't know your history, as I have just pointed out.

What have Republicans done for Civil Rights in the last 50 years?
What did they do for women's rights?
What did they do for the rights of the handicapped?
What did they do for gay rights?

It's called being on the wrong side of history

Your argument is irrelevant to my argument. If it weren't for Republicans, there would be no racial equality in America. I've cited three examples of what Republicans have done for Civil Rights in the past 140 years. Limiting their so-called inaction to a specific time frame is a well known tactic to paint them as having done nothing for Civil Rights. When in reality, they laid the foundation for Civil Rights, as far back as 1863.

Have a seat. It's called being wrong altogether, rightwinger. Keep your ignoratio elenchi arguments to yourself.

What party did Lincoln's vice president come from? The second term one.