Rightwinger’s ‘Southern Strategy’ Theory is .

[rightwinger]

….just South of sane!!

Wingy wrote this:

“…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation…The south has been Republican ever since…”

1. Perhaps the best example of how little individual thought, or even curiosity, the reliable Democrat voter is allowed, is the provably false myth of a Republican Southern Strategy. Absurd though it is…David Mamet gives one explanation, in “The Secret Knowledge:”

a.Yet our Liberal accepts doctrines, policies, programs, that make no sense, or are actually destructive, for the offer of acceptance of the herd…or the opposite, expulsion if one doesn’t support same. It is not that our Liberals do not care about rectitude, but he cannot afford to notice the insanity. The size and power of the group allows the individual to submerge his doubts…but at the cost of obedience and the surrender his individuality.


2. “… the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections or to gain political support in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.”
Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





3. Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.

a. They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

b. The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.






4. 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.

a. So…if “…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans…” is the contention that those ‘segregationist Democrat voters’ didn’t know who voted for the bill?

b. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.




5. 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 Democrats 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!
Covered fully in “Mugged,” Coulter.

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?


QED.

Damn....That's the best you could come up with?

Another cut and paste rant that ignores North/South Demographics in a pathetic attempt to label segregation as a Democratic Problem

You are however correct in that race was not the only factor in the Republican Southern Strategy. There was also guns, abortion, hatred of gays, opposition to non Christian religions, anti-immigration....all combined to make Red States red

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

….just South of sane!!

Wingy wrote this:

“…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation…The south has been Republican ever since…”

1. Perhaps the best example of how little individual thought, or even curiosity, the reliable Democrat voter is allowed, is the provably false myth of a Republican Southern Strategy. Absurd though it is…David Mamet gives one explanation, in “The Secret Knowledge:”

a.Yet our Liberal accepts doctrines, policies, programs, that make no sense, or are actually destructive, for the offer of acceptance of the herd…or the opposite, expulsion if one doesn’t support same. It is not that our Liberals do not care about rectitude, but he cannot afford to notice the insanity. The size and power of the group allows the individual to submerge his doubts…but at the cost of obedience and the surrender his individuality.


2. “… the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections or to gain political support in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.”
Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





3. Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.

a. They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

b. The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.






4. 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.

a. So…if “…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans…” is the contention that those ‘segregationist Democrat voters’ didn’t know who voted for the bill?

b. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.




5. 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 Democrats 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!
Covered fully in “Mugged,” Coulter.

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?


QED.

Damn....That's the best you could come up with?

Another cut and paste rant that ignores North/South Demographics in a pathetic attempt to label segregation as a Democratic Problem

You are however correct in that race was not the only factor in the Republican Southern Strategy. There was also guns, abortion, hatred of gays, opposition to non Christian religions, anti-immigration....all combined to make Red States red

Correct.

Lee Atwater was the architect of the GOP’s Southern Strategy, as utilized today:

In the early 1980s, Atwater was a master manipulator of the news media and crafty manager of the GOP's Southern Strategy, which uses racial fear to herd white Democrats into the Republican Party. He — like Richard Nixon before him — understood that a subtle appeal to racism would, over time, change the political landscape of the South.

This is what he said during a 1981 interview about how the GOP could marginalize blacks: "You start out in 1954 by saying 'n-----, n-----, n-----.' By 1968 you can't say 'n-----' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now (that) you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic … because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'n-----, n-----."

Column: 'Southern Strategy' excludes blacks

 

[xsited1]

it's stupid to lie about things that are easy to check, chunky monkey.



Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there's no doubt it would not have passed without republican votes, but to say that substantially more republicans voted for it than democrats is a flat out lie.

this is why no one but your fellow nutbars takes you seriously, monkey.

Lie? That's a bit strong. 'Substantially more' is subjective. From the data above, here is the spread in percentages:

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

So 80% of Republicans voted for it versus 61% of Democrats. That's a 19% difference. Substantially more? Maybe. How about the other numbers:

Cloture in the Senate: 82% vs 66% = 16%
The Senate version: 82% vs 69% = 13%
The Senate version, voted on by the House: 80% vs 63% = 17%

So the spreads are between 13% and 19%. What would you consider 'substantially more'? 25%? 50%?

substantially more republicans than democrats means a greater number of republicans than democrats, not a higher percentage thereof.


telling me it's raining while you piss down my back doesn't make it rain, sparky.

she lied.

No, that's not what it means. Take the first number: There are a total of 248 Democrats (152+96) and 172 Republicans (138+34). What you're saying is that there is no possible way more Republicans could be for it than Democrats and you would be correct simply because there were a lot more Democrats. But that wasn't the point that was being made. The point was that there was a lot more Republicans in the Republican party that were for it that there were Democrats in the Democratic party. I'm sure you know this at some level, but your obvious hatred for the OP has clouded your judgement.

 

[rightwinger]

Lie? That's a bit strong. 'Substantially more' is subjective. From the data above, here is the spread in percentages:

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

So 80% of Republicans voted for it versus 61% of Democrats. That's a 19% difference. Substantially more? Maybe. How about the other numbers:

Cloture in the Senate: 82% vs 66% = 16%
The Senate version: 82% vs 69% = 13%
The Senate version, voted on by the House: 80% vs 63% = 17%

So the spreads are between 13% and 19%. What would you consider 'substantially more'? 25%? 50%?

substantially more republicans than democrats means a greater number of republicans than democrats, not a higher percentage thereof.


telling me it's raining while you piss down my back doesn't make it rain, sparky.

she lied.

No, that's not what it means. Take the first number: There are a total of 248 Democrats (152+96) and 172 Republicans (138+34). What you're saying is that there is no possible way more Republicans could be for it than Democrats and you would be correct simply because there were a lot more Democrats. But that wasn't the point that was being made. The point was that there was a lot more Republicans in the Republican party that were for it that there were Democrats in the Democratic party. I'm sure you know this at some level, but your obvious hatred for the OP has clouded your judgement.

How do your numbers break out when you look at North vs South?

Arguing that Southern Republicans in some way supported Civil Rights is ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rightwinger’s ‘Southern Strategy’ Theory is….

…not a ‘theory,’ but a fact.

And the OP’s premise is meaningless idiocy from the outset, the issue isn’t ‘democrats’ and ‘republicans’ 50 years ago. The issue is that efforts to realize civil rights for all Americas during the Post War period was opposed for the most part by conservatives, their party affiliation being irrelevant.

Those same conservatives from the 50s and 60s joined the Republican Party during the 70s and 80s in response to the GOP’s Southern Strategy, a strategy designed to accommodate the hate and ignorance manifest in most conservatives, including the right’s efforts to undermine civil liberties and expand the authority of the state.

 

[expatriate]

that's faulty logic. If your statement about "substantially" had mentioned percentages in any way, you might have a point, but it didn't.

If there were, for the sake of argument, five pterodactyls still living in the world and there were ten million alligators, and if four of the five pterodactyls preferred young lambs for dinner, and only seven of the ten million alligators did, it would still be inaccurate to state that substantially more pterodactyls preferred sheep than alligators. Seven million is "substantially" more than four, any way you slice it.

It is inaccurate to state that substantially more republicans than democrats voted for the civil rights act in 1964 because, in substance, more is more, regardless of the pool of available votes. More democrats in congress voted for the civil rights act than republicans... substantially, and by any other measure other than as a percentage of the total democratic caucus versus the total republican caucus. Words have meanings and playing fast and loose with them only gets you in trouble. I guess Brooklyn Junior College - whose motto is, "close enough is close enough" - didn't teach that.

"you might have a point,"


Based on usage of the English language, not only do I "have a point,"....but that point is dispositive....


....in fact, it blows your rowboat out of the water!

Clearly, you have a worse than 'leaky' argument when you try to paint the Republicans as racist, and I prove that a greater percentage of Democrats voted against civil rights than for.


Of course, you'd have to ignore the two previous efforts to pass civil rights legislation, and same was stymied by Democrats.



Sure hope you can swim.....

Percentages were not mentioned in point #4 of the OP. As it is written, it is factually inaccurate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

that's faulty logic. If your statement about "substantially" had mentioned percentages in any way, you might have a point, but it didn't.

If there were, for the sake of argument, five pterodactyls still living in the world and there were ten million alligators, and if four of the five pterodactyls preferred young lambs for dinner, and only seven of the ten million alligators did, it would still be inaccurate to state that substantially more pterodactyls preferred sheep than alligators. Seven million is "substantially" more than four, any way you slice it.

It is inaccurate to state that substantially more republicans than democrats voted for the civil rights act in 1964 because, in substance, more is more, regardless of the pool of available votes. More democrats in congress voted for the civil rights act than republicans... substantially, and by any other measure other than as a percentage of the total democratic caucus versus the total republican caucus. Words have meanings and playing fast and loose with them only gets you in trouble. I guess Brooklyn Junior College - whose motto is, "close enough is close enough" - didn't teach that.

"you might have a point,"


Based on usage of the English language, not only do I "have a point,"....but that point is dispositive....


....in fact, it blows your rowboat out of the water!

Clearly, you have a worse than 'leaky' argument when you try to paint the Republicans as racist, and I prove that a greater percentage of Democrats voted against civil rights than for.


Of course, you'd have to ignore the two previous efforts to pass civil rights legislation, and same was stymied by Democrats.



Sure hope you can swim.....

Percentages were not mentioned in point #4 of the OP. As it is written, it is factually inaccurate.

Post #18 explains it in plain English.


Not one of your accomplishments?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rightwinger’s ‘Southern Strategy’ Theory is….

…not a ‘theory,’ but a fact.

And the OP’s premise is meaningless idiocy from the outset, the issue isn’t ‘democrats’ and ‘republicans’ 50 years ago. The issue is that efforts to realize civil rights for all Americas during the Post War period was opposed for the most part by conservatives, their party affiliation being irrelevant.

Those same conservatives from the 50s and 60s joined the Republican Party during the 70s and 80s in response to the GOP’s Southern Strategy, a strategy designed to accommodate the hate and ignorance manifest in most conservatives, including the right’s efforts to undermine civil liberties and expand the authority of the state.

Wow.....


...since you rank higher in "meaningless idiocy" I accept your expertise in same....



Of course, the facts of the OP tend to paint you as .....what's the word....Oh, yes...."fool."

 

[PoliticalChic]

substantially more republicans than democrats means a greater number of republicans than democrats, not a higher percentage thereof.


telling me it's raining while you piss down my back doesn't make it rain, sparky.

she lied.

No, that's not what it means. Take the first number: There are a total of 248 Democrats (152+96) and 172 Republicans (138+34). What you're saying is that there is no possible way more Republicans could be for it than Democrats and you would be correct simply because there were a lot more Democrats. But that wasn't the point that was being made. The point was that there was a lot more Republicans in the Republican party that were for it that there were Democrats in the Democratic party. I'm sure you know this at some level, but your obvious hatred for the OP has clouded your judgement.

How do your numbers break out when you look at North vs South?

Arguing that Southern Republicans in some way supported Civil Rights is ridiculous.

"Wingy wrote this:

“…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation…The south has been Republican ever since…”


In the words of the famed Brown Bomber, "you can run, but you can't hide."

 

[PoliticalChic]

….just South of sane!!

Wingy wrote this:

“…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation…The south has been Republican ever since…”

1. Perhaps the best example of how little individual thought, or even curiosity, the reliable Democrat voter is allowed, is the provably false myth of a Republican Southern Strategy. Absurd though it is…David Mamet gives one explanation, in “The Secret Knowledge:”

a.Yet our Liberal accepts doctrines, policies, programs, that make no sense, or are actually destructive, for the offer of acceptance of the herd…or the opposite, expulsion if one doesn’t support same. It is not that our Liberals do not care about rectitude, but he cannot afford to notice the insanity. The size and power of the group allows the individual to submerge his doubts…but at the cost of obedience and the surrender his individuality.


2. “… the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections or to gain political support in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.”
Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





3. Liberal neurotic obsession with this apocryphal notion- it’s been cited hundreds of times in the NYTimes- is supposed to explain why Democrats can’t get nice churchgoing, patriotic southerners to vote for the party of antiwar protesters, abortion, the ACLU and gay marriage.

a. They tell themselves it’s because they won’t stoop to pander to a bunch of racists. This slander should probably be the first clue as to why southerners don’t like them.

b. The central premise of this folklore is that anyone who votes Republican is a racist. Pretty sophisticated thinking.






4. 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.

a. So…if “…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans…” is the contention that those ‘segregationist Democrat voters’ didn’t know who voted for the bill?

b. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.




5. 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 Democrats 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!
Covered fully in “Mugged,” Coulter.

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?


QED.

Damn....That's the best you could come up with?

Another cut and paste rant that ignores North/South Demographics in a pathetic attempt to label segregation as a Democratic Problem

You are however correct in that race was not the only factor in the Republican Southern Strategy. There was also guns, abortion, hatred of gays, opposition to non Christian religions, anti-immigration....all combined to make Red States red

Correct.

Lee Atwater was the architect of the GOP’s Southern Strategy, as utilized today:

In the early 1980s, Atwater was a master manipulator of the news media and crafty manager of the GOP's Southern Strategy, which uses racial fear to herd white Democrats into the Republican Party. He — like Richard Nixon before him — understood that a subtle appeal to racism would, over time, change the political landscape of the South.

This is what he said during a 1981 interview about how the GOP could marginalize blacks: "You start out in 1954 by saying 'n-----, n-----, n-----.' By 1968 you can't say 'n-----' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now (that) you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic … because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'n-----, n-----."

Column: 'Southern Strategy' excludes blacks

I'm gonna guess that you are unaware of the fact that the column you quote is by an author of a hagiographic biography of Bill Clinton.....

....wasn't much of a guess, as there is so very much you don't know.

And, referring to a Republican, even one who told folks what they wanted to hear, as 'a master manipulator of the news media' does seem a stretch......

News media and Republicans, not really a marriage made in Heaven.

 

[rightwinger]

No, that's not what it means. Take the first number: There are a total of 248 Democrats (152+96) and 172 Republicans (138+34). What you're saying is that there is no possible way more Republicans could be for it than Democrats and you would be correct simply because there were a lot more Democrats. But that wasn't the point that was being made. The point was that there was a lot more Republicans in the Republican party that were for it that there were Democrats in the Democratic party. I'm sure you know this at some level, but your obvious hatred for the OP has clouded your judgement.

How do your numbers break out when you look at North vs South?

Arguing that Southern Republicans in some way supported Civil Rights is ridiculous.

"Wingy wrote this:

“…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation…The south has been Republican ever since…”


In the words of the famed Brown Bomber, "you can run, but you can't hide."

True then, true today

 

[del]

Lie? That's a bit strong. 'Substantially more' is subjective. From the data above, here is the spread in percentages:

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

So 80% of Republicans voted for it versus 61% of Democrats. That's a 19% difference. Substantially more? Maybe. How about the other numbers:

Cloture in the Senate: 82% vs 66% = 16%
The Senate version: 82% vs 69% = 13%
The Senate version, voted on by the House: 80% vs 63% = 17%

So the spreads are between 13% and 19%. What would you consider 'substantially more'? 25%? 50%?

substantially more republicans than democrats means a greater number of republicans than democrats, not a higher percentage thereof.


telling me it's raining while you piss down my back doesn't make it rain, sparky.

she lied.

No, that's not what it means. Take the first number: There are a total of 248 Democrats (152+96) and 172 Republicans (138+34). What you're saying is that there is no possible way more Republicans could be for it than Democrats and you would be correct simply because there were a lot more Democrats. But that wasn't the point that was being made. The point was that there was a lot more Republicans in the Republican party that were for it that there were Democrats in the Democratic party. I'm sure you know this at some level, but your obvious hatred for the OP has clouded your judgement.

yes, that's exactly what it means. i don't know why you feel the need to defend annie the tranny, jr here, but it makes you look pretty stupid.

not as stupid as pretending you know what's inside my head vis a vis the idiot op, but pretty fucking stupid nonetheless

have a nice day

 

[del]

"you might have a point,"


Based on usage of the English language, not only do I "have a point,"....but that point is dispositive....


....in fact, it blows your rowboat out of the water!

Clearly, you have a worse than 'leaky' argument when you try to paint the Republicans as racist, and I prove that a greater percentage of Democrats voted against civil rights than for.


Of course, you'd have to ignore the two previous efforts to pass civil rights legislation, and same was stymied by Democrats.



Sure hope you can swim.....

Percentages were not mentioned in point #4 of the OP. As it is written, it is factually inaccurate.

Post #18 explains it in plain English.


Not one of your accomplishments?

post #18 attempts to perpetuate the lie.

you may call that an explanation, you may even be brain dead enough to believe it is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do your numbers break out when you look at North vs South?

Arguing that Southern Republicans in some way supported Civil Rights is ridiculous.

"Wingy wrote this:

“…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation…The south has been Republican ever since…”


In the words of the famed Brown Bomber, "you can run, but you can't hide."

True then, true today

Since the OP proved you incorrect, you post comes across as one of those "Is not, Is not" posts based on a jaundiced opinion.

As usual.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Percentages were not mentioned in point #4 of the OP. As it is written, it is factually inaccurate.

Post #18 explains it in plain English.


Not one of your accomplishments?

post #18 attempts to perpetuate the lie.

you may call that an explanation, you may even be brain dead enough to believe it is.

Use of standard English, a lie?


I’d love to hear the rest of your rant, but I’m very busy…I have several more quarters to flip.

 

[del]

Post #18 explains it in plain English.


Not one of your accomplishments?

post #18 attempts to perpetuate the lie.

you may call that an explanation, you may even be brain dead enough to believe it is.

Use of standard English, a lie?


I’d love to hear the rest of your rant, but I’m very busy…I have several more quarters to flip.

quarter pounders?

 

[xsited1]

substantially more republicans than democrats means a greater number of republicans than democrats, not a higher percentage thereof.


telling me it's raining while you piss down my back doesn't make it rain, sparky.

she lied.

No, that's not what it means. Take the first number: There are a total of 248 Democrats (152+96) and 172 Republicans (138+34). What you're saying is that there is no possible way more Republicans could be for it than Democrats and you would be correct simply because there were a lot more Democrats. But that wasn't the point that was being made. The point was that there was a lot more Republicans in the Republican party that were for it that there were Democrats in the Democratic party. I'm sure you know this at some level, but your obvious hatred for the OP has clouded your judgement.

yes, that's exactly what it means. i don't know why you feel the need to defend annie the tranny, jr here, but it makes you look pretty stupid.

not as stupid as pretending you know what's inside my head vis a vis the idiot op, but pretty fucking stupid nonetheless

have a nice day

Good grief, Del, what is wrong with you? I'm just defending what was typed. You got it wrong and I called you on it. Now you're attacking me? I suppose that's just a human defense mechanism, but it's becoming increasingly evident that you've got major issues.

 

[rightwinger]

"Wingy wrote this:

“…segregationist voters who blamed civil rights on the Democrats, swiched loyaties to new Republicans who now embraced their views. Republicans ran against busing, against afirmative action, against equal rights legislation…The south has been Republican ever since…”


In the words of the famed Brown Bomber, "you can run, but you can't hide."

True then, true today

Since the OP proved you incorrect, you post comes across as one of those "Is not, Is not" posts based on a jaundiced opinion.

As usual.

Other than that you can channel Ann Coulter, your OP proved nothing

 

[expatriate]

"you might have a point,"


Based on usage of the English language, not only do I "have a point,"....but that point is dispositive....


....in fact, it blows your rowboat out of the water!

Clearly, you have a worse than 'leaky' argument when you try to paint the Republicans as racist, and I prove that a greater percentage of Democrats voted against civil rights than for.


Of course, you'd have to ignore the two previous efforts to pass civil rights legislation, and same was stymied by Democrats.



Sure hope you can swim.....

Percentages were not mentioned in point #4 of the OP. As it is written, it is factually inaccurate.

Post #18 explains it in plain English.


Not one of your accomplishments?

the "explanation" cannot change the FACT that 199 is SUBSTANTIALLY more than 163. 199 congressional democrats voted for the 1964 CRA. 163 congressional republicans voted for the 1964 CRA. I realize that Columbia certainly does not have the reputation that Annapolis does in terms of math, science, and engineering, but we aren't talking high level stuff here.... knowing that 199 > 163 is taught in grade school.

 

[expatriate]

I would also suggest that we all try to write for clarity and avoid ambiguity. If one has to go on to "explain" what one was trying to say in an earlier post, I think that would tend to indicate that the first post wasn't written well enough to begin with. It's sort of like jokes... if you have to explain the punch line to your audience, the joke probably needed to be reworked before it went into the act in the first place. And that's fine... but trying to defend the poorly written joke and trying instead to put the onus on the audience is just not good form.

In your case, PC... if you had simply said, "oh... I can see how I was unclear. I should have stated that, as a percentage of their total caucuses, republicans were more supportive of the civil rights act than democrats at that time, because, back then, the racists in America were primarily in the democratic party and primarily in the south... unlike today", you would have won accolades from all sides for your forthright honesty instead of the catcalls from the left for your obviously inarticulate and inaccurate statement.