tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5381810032134613287.post2975025195193025918..comments2024-01-22T04:11:11.654-06:00Comments on Hack Wilson: Liberals' views on Herman Cain and the Black CommunityHackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00939367013876552898noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5381810032134613287.post-82413362266374541162012-11-02T05:47:40.661-05:002012-11-02T05:47:40.661-05:00In 5 minutes of research, I learned that a ~much~ ...<i>In 5 minutes of research, I learned that a ~much~ higher percentage of Republicans voted for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. So who REALLY opposed it?</i><br /><br />What percentage of those Republicans were from the South/ex-Confederate states? Only one from the Senate: John Tower (of Texas), and he voted against CRA-64. I'll leave it to a five-minute-researcher to determine the political milieu of the GOP at that time when only one senator out of 22 (two from each of eleven ex-Confederate states) was a Republican. Or the already growing divisions within the GOP over such matters. Doesn't take me five minutes to remember that the GOP nominee in 1964 was one of the Republicans who voted AGAINST CRA-64 and that was his wedge issue in the general election in the South. Not only did Goldwater oppose CRA-64, so did the other conservative members of the GOP caucus like Hickenlooper (Iowa). Senator Dirksen, a <b>pro-New Deal Republican</b>, took a lot of heat from the conservative wing of the party. Which, as I wrote above, had only one member from the South. Today, Dirksen would be opposed with a teabagger candidate for being too moderate or liberal; his only purpose in today's GOP is to serve as cover for disingenuous twits who want to take credit and pretend that they're not what they really are.<br /><br />By the way, here's some help with the math:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region<br /><br />The filibuster in the Senate was ended by GOP liberals and moderates, not by the conservative wing of the party. For conservatives, especially Southern ones, today to take credit for that -- as if they've always been the dominant wing of the GOP -- is risible. Side-splitting risibility.<br /><br />Today's GOP is much more reflective of those who opposed CRA-64. It's gd-freaking ironic that those Johnnie-come-latelies to the GOP would call the mostly New England/Midwestern establishment moderates and liberals in the GOP who helped end the filibuster and pass CRA-64 names like RINOs today. Then again, you're probably unable to find much support from Lincoln for the modern GOP shift to being an adamantly pro-states rights party. Remember that next time you want to talk about freeing slaves or passing civil rights legislation if you're political views are more in line with a Southern Democrat circa 1868 than with a pre-Goldwater/Reagan-Southern-Strategy Republican.<br /><br />Remember, you wingnuts, teabaggers, and amoral minority wackos used to be the RINOs, or at the very least a marginal part of a bigger tent that was dominated by the centrists you now revile. At least you should give credit where it's due. "Freeing the slaves" involved denying the kind of states rights positions you nutjobs hold today. "Helping pass LBJ-era civil rights" legislation was over the objections of your wing of the party. You new Southern-style Republicans didn't build the GOP or broaden its big tent. You've made it a more regional party and, with teabag BS purity tests, a much more rigidly ideological one -- which, again, is ironic when the new ideologies (pre-Civil War-style states rights and opposition to civil rights legislation) oppose the things you want to take credit for. Amazing... lol.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5381810032134613287.post-30219975754811660012011-09-29T19:11:13.688-05:002011-09-29T19:11:13.688-05:00I've always said that the Democratic Party is ...I've always said that the Democratic Party is the party of anger and ignorance. And if you question the angry ones, you soon learn that they can't even give you a logical reason for their anger.Gorges Smythehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08777621500611603786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5381810032134613287.post-68148932907583792892011-09-29T17:44:27.749-05:002011-09-29T17:44:27.749-05:00In 5 minutes of research, I learned that a ~much~ ...In 5 minutes of research, I learned that a ~much~ higher percentage of Republicans voted for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. So who REALLY opposed it?<br /><br />Also, Dems should go Google the following names: Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Orval Faubus... all Democrats.Jim McKeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04302154484950586503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5381810032134613287.post-67972344164656853242011-09-29T09:29:19.708-05:002011-09-29T09:29:19.708-05:00Sorry, Hack. I did not read a single solitary wor...Sorry, Hack. I did not read a single solitary word of those liberal idiot comments you posted. <br /><br />I don't need to, I already know what they have to say.<br /><br />We don't need to argue with these idiots, we simply need to defeat them unconditionally.Freddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10778430453468720627noreply@blogger.com