Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   

Your Ad Here

This is funny
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberal Corner
Author Message
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 1200
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:43 am    Post subject: This is funny Reply with quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal#In_short

In short

Democracy, the American Revolution, ending slavery and child labor, equality of vote and pay for women and minorities, government subsidized education and health care, weekends and holidays off - all of them, liberal ideas.

Very Happy
Back to top
thelast007
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 492

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Razz LRazz I Razz B Razz E Razz R Razz A Razz L Razz SRazz RRazz U Razz L Razz E Razz

cuz they're right quite a bit
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3796

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That should probably be changed.
Back to top
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 1200
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
That should probably be changed.


What is funny is that's how I came upon it. Didn't touch the article.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:59 am    Post subject: Re: This is funny Reply with quote
Just weighing in to insert a little reality into the thread...

Quote:
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.
http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/mz_0808.shtml

Note: If you have issues with this source, feel free to check these facts elsewhere; but understand that this was simply the first result returned by a Google search: http://www.google.com/search?h.....vil+rights
Back to top
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 1200
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You think Nixon would have signed off on it.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Being a private citizen at the time, Nixon was not in a position to sign off on it, but he did lobby for its passage.
Back to top
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 1200
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
Being a private citizen at the time, Nixon was not in a position to sign off on it, but he did lobby for its passage.


I know he was a private citizen but had he not lost to Kennedy he would had deal with the civil rights movement. I just wonder would a man of his character would have signed off on that bill.
Back to top
shankarsingam
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 122

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:45 pm    Post subject: Re: This is funny Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
Just weighing in to insert a little reality into the thread...

Quote:
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.
http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/mz_0808.shtml

Note: If you have issues with this source, feel free to check these facts elsewhere; but understand that this was simply the first result returned by a Google search: http://www.google.com/search?h.....vil+rights


Gee, then why are all the red states(republican states) states where the worst atrocities against blacks were ever committed?
Back to top
thelast007
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 492

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:25 am    Post subject: Re: This is funny Reply with quote
Anym wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal#In_short

In short

Democracy, the American Revolution, ending slavery and child labor, equality of vote and pay for women and minorities, government subsidized education and health care, weekends and holidays off - all of them, liberal ideas. Very Happy


TrespassersW wrote:
Just weighing in to insert a little reality into the thread...

Quote:
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.
http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/mz_0808.shtml

Note: If you have issues with this source, feel free to check these facts elsewhere; but understand that this was simply the first result returned by a Google search: http://www.google.com/search?h.....vil+rights


Laughing


During that time period Republicans were the Liberals.

so Republican Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 idea was considered liberal.
Even the Joseph Hayne Rainey first African American person to serve in the United States House of Representatives was a Republican becasue the Republican Pary was Liberal.

republicans or/and democrats are liberals or/and conservatives.

conservatives are simply more status quo not republican.

liberals are simply more free thought/ free individual rights not democrat.

my mother is anti choice, anti stem cell research, my father supports the war in Iraq, and thinks global warming is just a cycle. and they would die if gay marriage was leaglized. they even want prayer in the school to be mandatory.

they vote and donate democrat every time only for one thing which is in their opinion republicans don't understand black people. againtheir opinion. but other than that they seem like today's conservatives to me. but that one thing makes them side democrat. Laughing go figure
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:08 am    Post subject: Re: This is funny Reply with quote
shankarsingam wrote:
TrespassersW wrote:
Just weighing in to insert a little reality into the thread...
Quote:
The 1964 Civil Rights Act was an update of Republican Senator Charles Sumner's 1875 Civil Rights Act. In striking down that law in 1883, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 14th amendment was not sufficient constitutional authorization, so the 1964 version had to be written in such a way as to rely instead on the interstate commerce clause for its constitutional underpinning.

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call "the conscience of the Senate", filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.
http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/mz_0808.shtml

Note: If you have issues with this source, feel free to check these facts elsewhere; but understand that this was simply the first result returned by a Google search: http://www.google.com/search?h.....vil+rights

Gee, then why are all the red states (republican states) states where the worst atrocities against blacks were ever committed?

(A) Do you have a list of those atrocities or a citation that supports this claim?

(B) Being a red state doesn't actually mean that everyone who lives there is a Republican.

(C) Assuming that your statement is accurate, what would that have to do with the factual accuracy of the information I cited?
Back to top
thelast007
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 492

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....ct_of_1964

Yea-Nay
Quote:
By party
The original House version:

Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

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


more democrats voted against the bill than republicans

Yea-Nay
Quote:
By party and region
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 Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)



as you can see all 11 southern republicans voted against the bill.
but only 8 southern democrats voted for it.
the other 107 southern democrats voted against the bill.



liberal/conservative is not republican/democrat

---------------------------------------------------
a small small few atrocities to begin with...

it was everywhere.
it was just more overt in the south.

Alabama Church Bombings (alabama)
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/L......timeline/

Emitt Till (mississippi)
http://www.emmetttillmurder.com/

Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (alabama)
http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/Story.asp?s=1207586

James Byrd (texas)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/22/dragging.death.03/

Martin Luth King Assassination (Tennessee)
http://history1900s.about.com/.....assass.htm

Medgar Evers Murdered(AACP field secretary) (mississippi)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/me.....evers.html

Bloody Sunday (alabama)
http://afroamhistory.about.com.....sunday.htm

Rosewood Massacre (florida)
http://www.africanaonline.com/rosewood.htm

Murder of the 3 civil rights workers (mississippi)
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmjustice4.html

Mother of 5 Civil Rights Worker Assasinated (alabama)
http://www.geocities.com/gury4u/viola1.htm

Dahmer (NAACP official) fire bombing (alabama)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/21/klan/

Random Lynching of Michael Donald(alabama)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....lux%20Klan

Chained and Drowned Alive by Klan (mississippi)
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/125033.html

Publisher Warren Duliere slain by Klan (west virgina)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....lux%20Klan
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for posting the vote tallies. I think it is fair to say that the votes put the lie to the notion that either party has a monopoly either on bigotry or on enlightenment.

Also, thanks for the list of atrocities. Where do I find the voter registration of the individuals who committed these acts, so we can learn to which party they belonged? Wink

As to the heinous crime perpetrated against 399 Tuskegee sharecroppers; since this was a program of the federal government, you'll want to link it to those persons in the federal government who authorized it, sanctioned it, worked on it, and failed for 40 years to end it. (I suspect that will encompass a lot of guilty people on both sides of the aisle--Republican AND Democrat.) I don't think it is fair to lay that at the feet of the people, or the government, of Tennessee.

(Of course, maybe we could just agree to hold individuals accountable for their actions, instead of trying to link whole states and political parties to the horrific actions of these despicable persons.)
Back to top
Xerxes
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 1530
Location: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrespassersW wrote:
(Of course, maybe we could just agree to hold individuals accountable for their actions, instead of trying to link whole states and political parties to the horrific actions of these despicable persons.)


I think this is due mainly to the fact that the Republican party, over the course of the last 5-6 yrs. has created this divide in this country, by pidgeonholing whole states and regions. Who came up with the whole red state/blue state thing in the first place? You are now seeing the full effects of the damage that they have done to this nation. The whole red/blue thing was working when Bush was on top. But now that things are not going so well, most Repubs are denouncing that whole concept.
Back to top
TrespassersW
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 524
Location: North Carolina, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Xerxes wrote:
Who came up with the whole red state/blue state thing in the first place?

THE MEDIA. http://www.washingtonmonthly.c.....005156.php
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberal Corner All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics