If only white males voted

[rocket88]

Now as for you Rocket, your first post on the subject was very encouraging, you pointed out that the DNC would moderate if only white males voted, you were on subject but now you have followed red into the weeds, I quit, I'm gonna go read my damn book. The only thing I don't like about it is it has very small print and I have to wear my freakin glasses. The last book I read was American Sniper, it had large print which I thought was a bit odd for a SEAL sniper to use in his book but it worked for me, good book too by the way.

So do you deny the fact of Helms and Thurmond's defections? Do you deny that the South suddenly went from Democratic to Republican around 1965?

Or are you unable to admit that the Right has some dirty laundry as far as racism goes? The Left has plenty. We both know that. So does the Right. Deal with facts.

 

[rocket88]

At the end of the day the Democrats filibustered the civil right act and the Republicans broke the filibuster and voted the act in. I am not really interested in going round and round on this subject until someone identifies themselves as a black Democrat, that is a discussion I would enjoy.

At the end of the day a Democratic President shepherded and signed the legislation, and racists suddenly started voting Republican.

 

[Teh Internets]

You are ignoring the fact that Lincoln abolished slavery when only white male property owners voted.

This is technically true but also deceptive; Lincoln didn't run on a campaign of "I'm going to abolish slavery the second I'm elected.", he ran on a platform of banning slavery in new territories. Before the actual civil war abolitionists were a fringe group. He only made the decision to ban slavery halfway through the civil war when he was confident that he could not get the south to rejoin the Union with compromise.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

This is technically true but also deceptive; Lincoln didn't run on a campaign of "I'm going to abolish slavery the second I'm elected.", he ran on a platform of banning slavery in new territories. Before the actual civil war abolitionists were a fringe group. He only made the decision to ban slavery halfway through the civil war when he was confident that he could not get the south to rejoin the Union with compromise.

In many of Lincolns personal writings he lamented that he couldn't do more sooner on the slavery issue. He did what he could when he could and
he pushed hard for the 13th amendment at a time when the war was basically over and there was nothing in it for him politicaly, he was a good man.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

At the end of the day a Democratic President shepherded and signed the legislation, and racists suddenly started voting Republican.

I stole this from another thread but it fits here.

Lyndon B. Johnson | Leftist Racism Watch

 

[nonpareil]

well, I don't know about the "white" qualification - seems impossible to define, for one.

I think, however that we can all agree that giving women the vote was a mistake. Look at the history:

First women got the right to vote
Then we had the Great Depression
Then we had WWII
Then we saw the rise of Communism
Then saw an increasing inability of America to win wars (Korea, Vietnam)
And let's not even bother getting into all the minor disasters women voters have inflicted upon us; from President Bill Clinton to banning dodgeball in school....


End Women's Suffrage - We've All Suffraged Enough. :mrgreen:










:runs:

Or we could just make statistics compulsory in school so that some people at least learn what "correlation is causation" means and don't repeatedly make the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[soccerboy22]

At the end of the day the Democrats filibustered the civil right act and the Republicans broke the filibuster and voted the act in. I am not really interested in going round and round on this subject until someone identifies themselves as a black Democrat, that is a discussion I would enjoy.

Then you are apparently only interest in partisan points, rather than the whole picture.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The whole story paints the whole picture, remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Without Republicans the bill would have failed.

Now as for the Dem's in this event, "The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."

"On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays."

So you can see here which party fought the civil rights act tooth and nail and which party is responsible for getting it passed. Left to their own devices Dem's would not have passed it. Now you have successfully derailed my thread and used up valuable minutes of my lunch hour, HAPPY? LOL

Nothing accurate here. I posted the numbers. This was a SECTIONAL issue, not a partisan issue. Democrats were more supportive from a percentage standpoint, ACROSS THE BOARD than Republicans. Far more Republicans in the North (where nearly all Democrats supported the Act) voted against Civil Rights. This is nothing but conservative revisionism that has been making the rounds for years. No basis in reality. The issue was a SECTIONAL one. Not a partisan one.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

At the end of the day the Democrats filibustered the civil right act and the Republicans broke the filibuster and voted the act in. I am not really interested in going round and round on this subject until someone identifies themselves as a black Democrat, that is a discussion I would enjoy.

At the end of the day, SOUTHERNERS fillibustered the Civil Rights Act, and NORTHERNERS broke the filibuster and voted the act in. Since we know that, percentage-wise, more Democrats supported the act than Republicans, AND that this was a sectional issue not a partisan one, we know that your comments above are not relevant. You may not be interested in going round and round with this topic, so once you stop posting misinformation, we can certainly cease that.

 

[American]

Might want to learn your history. The republican party of 1860 was nothing like the republican party of today. At the time, it was the party of abolition, which was it's big issue that differentiated it from the other parties(democrats and know nothings/Constitutionalists primarily). One of the biggest differences between then and now was that the republican party was the progressive, big government, anti-states rights party.

The Democratic Party of 1960 is nothing like the Democratic Party of today.

 

[Arbo]

The Democratic Party of 1960 is nothing like the Democratic Party of today.

Yes. Something people miss when they try to label either Republican or Democrat as the 'bad guy'.

 

[cpwill]

Or we could just make statistics compulsory in school so that some people at least learn what "correlation is causation" means and don't repeatedly make the same mistakes over and over again.

agreed. giving women the vote was a mistake in the first place, and keeping them involved has been a mistake ever since. obviously they have poor faculty for it, and frankly, we shouldn't be forcing them to worry their pretty heads about matters that, frankly, often have nothing to do with cooking or child care.

it's bad for them, bad for us, and bad for the country, and long since past time we corrected that mistake.

 

[PrometheusBound]

agreed. giving women the vote was a mistake in the first place, and keeping them involved has been a mistake ever since. obviously they have poor faculty for it, and frankly, we shouldn't be forcing them to worry their pretty heads about matters that, frankly, often have nothing to do with cooking or child care.

it's bad for them, bad for us, and bad for the country, and long since past time we corrected that mistake.

Eggheads get henpecked.

 

[rocket88]

I stole this from another thread but it fits here.

Lyndon B. Johnson | Leftist Racism Watch

So what's your point? Lincoln had some interesting, not exactly complimentary things to say about black people, too.

Or is your point that you're outraged that a Democrat wanted them to vote for Democrats? I'm confused. I never claimed Lyndon Johnson was a saint, but he could have vetoed civil rights, and he could have convinced his friends in the Senate to vote against it. You've got to remember that Johnson wasn't sitting around waiting for Kennedy to call him, he was in the Senate where he was the King of the backroom deal.

Point is, he could have killed civil rights if he wanted to, but he didn't.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists."

"Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the government of a god, great enough to make and maintain this universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagogue-ism as this?”

Guess who said those things?

 

[nonpareil]

agreed. giving women the vote was a mistake in the first place, and keeping them involved has been a mistake ever since. obviously they have poor faculty for it, and frankly, we shouldn't be forcing them to worry their pretty heads about matters that, frankly, often have nothing to do with cooking or child care.

it's bad for them, bad for us, and bad for the country, and long since past time we corrected that mistake.

As long as you learn what "correlation is not causation" means so you won't make failed jokes base on the same ignorance.

 

[rocket88]

Yes. Something people miss when they try to label either Republican or Democrat as the 'bad guy'.

You can't label either party like that. Both parties have plenty of dirty laundry to air when it comes to race. Some are too partisan to admit that, which is sad.