Rightwinger’s ‘Southern Strategy’ Theory is .

[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.

 

[del]

….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.

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

By party
The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

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.

 

[expatriate]

and again... the facts are there for all to see. What was once solid blue south of the mason-dixon line is now nearly solid red. 60 years ago, 90% of black Americans voted with the republican party. Today, 90% of black Americans vote for democrats. 60 years ago, blacks voted for the party of Lincoln because all the racists were in the democratic party. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why that has done a 180. To deny not only the existence of the GOP southern strategy, but also the past SUCCESS of that strategy is laughable. I guess at Brooklyn Junior College, they don't cover that in civics or in logic... but their curriculum is good enough for home schoolers, I guess.

 

[expatriate]

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.

The fact that she would even consider posting such an obviously untrue statement is really sort of astounding, actually.

wow.

 

[del]

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.

The fact that she would even consider posting such an obviously untrue statement is really sort of astounding, actually.

wow.

she's one of the finest comedic writers on the interwebz.

unfortunately, it's unbeknownst to her

 

[PoliticalChic]

and again... the facts are there for all to see. What was once solid blue south of the mason-dixon line is now nearly solid red. 60 years ago, 90% of black Americans voted with the republican party. Today, 90% of black Americans vote for democrats. 60 years ago, blacks voted for the party of Lincoln because all the racists were in the democratic party. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why that has done a 180. To deny not only the existence of the GOP southern strategy, but also the past SUCCESS of that strategy is laughable. I guess at Brooklyn Junior College, they don't cover that in civics or in logic... but their curriculum is good enough for home schoolers, I guess.

"Today, 90% of black Americans vote for democrats. 60 years ago, blacks voted for the party of Lincoln because all the racists were in the democratic party. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why that has done a 180."

So your answer is that the reason is that the Republicans were racists?

So that's why you're not a rocket scientist!!!

If Bill Clinton, 1993- gives medals to lifelong racists,....your view is that blacks switched because Republicans are racist?
Brilliant.

Ready for an education that you've sorely in need of?

1. FDR put a KKKlaner on the Supreme Court, and refused to desegregate the military, but was more than happy to put blacks on “Irish welfare,”- government jobs.

With the growth of government and welfare under the New Deal, black progress was ineluctably tied to the growth of government. And that is where the black vote went.

Northern blacks; in the South, Democrats still wouldn’t allow blacks to vote.

2. Black playwrite Zora Neale Hurston: “Throughout the New Deal era the relief program was the biggest weapon ever placed in the hands of those who sought power and votes…Dependent upon governmentfor their daily bread, men gradually relaxed their watchfulness and submitted to the will of the “Little White Father,”… WORLD | History turned right side up | Marvin Olasky | Feb. 13, 2010


3. And, since the 60's, both the efforts of the schools and the media have been controlled by those same Leftists who went from protesting to these areas.

a. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.” Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


b. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51



The result....folks like you who never learned to do their own thinking, but accept the propaganda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

The fact that she would even consider posting such an obviously untrue statement is really sort of astounding, actually.

wow.

Try cleaning off your specs....


The OP explains why so many in the South no longer vote Democrat:
"a. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their 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!"

 

[expatriate]

In the OP, Point #4 is a flat out lie.

You cannot spin that. You said:

"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."

the roll calls show that more democrats voted for the CIvil Rights Act than republicans. You lied. Plain and simple. Just admit it and move on.

 

[del]

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.

The fact that she would even consider posting such an obviously untrue statement is really sort of astounding, actually.

wow.

Try cleaning off your specs....


The OP explains why so many in the South no longer vote Democrat:
"a. Any loses in the South are directly attributable to their 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!"

try not lying, chunky

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the OP, Point #4 is a flat out lie.

You cannot spin that. You said:

"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."

the roll calls show that more democrats voted for the CIvil Rights Act than republicans. You lied. Plain and simple. Just admit it and move on.

Wrong again, rocket scientist.


"The House version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by only 61 percent of that Chamber's Democrats versus 80 percent of the Republicans.

More importantly, it was Republicans that ended a Democrat filibuster preventing a vote on this bill in the Senate. 82 percent of Republicans voted for cloture versus 66 percent of Democrats.

In the final Senate vote on the Act, 82 percent of Republicans voted "Aye" versus 69 percent of Democrats."



Read more: Sharpton Doesn't Know Higher Percentage of Republicans Than Democrats Voted for Civil Rights Act | NewsBusters.org

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the OP, Point #4 is a flat out lie.

You cannot spin that. You said:

"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."

the roll calls show that more democrats voted for the CIvil Rights Act than republicans. You lied. Plain and simple. Just admit it and move on.

By party
The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What did you say???

I can't hear you....


So....who were the racists?

Louder!!

 

[del]

In the OP, Point #4 is a flat out lie.

You cannot spin that. You said:

"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."

the roll calls show that more democrats voted for the CIvil Rights Act than republicans. You lied. Plain and simple. Just admit it and move on.

Wrong again, rocket scientist.


"The House version of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by only 61 percent of that Chamber's Democrats versus 80 percent of the Republicans.

More importantly, it was Republicans that ended a Democrat filibuster preventing a vote on this bill in the Senate. 82 percent of Republicans voted for cloture versus 66 percent of Democrats.

In the final Senate vote on the Act, 82 percent of Republicans voted "Aye" versus 69 percent of Democrats."



Read more: Sharpton Doesn't Know Higher Percentage of Republicans Than Democrats Voted for Civil Rights Act | NewsBusters.org

was supported by substantially more Republicans than Democrats

that's what you wrote, liar

try again, clitwhistle

 

[PoliticalChic]

In the OP, Point #4 is a flat out lie.

You cannot spin that. You said:

"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."

the roll calls show that more democrats voted for the CIvil Rights Act than republicans. You lied. Plain and simple. Just admit it and move on.

"You lied. Plain and simple. Just admit it and move on."

Turns out I didn't lie.....didn't it?

I never lie.

 

[del]

In the OP, Point #4 is a flat out lie.

You cannot spin that. You said:

"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."

the roll calls show that more democrats voted for the CIvil Rights Act than republicans. You lied. Plain and simple. Just admit it and move on.

"You lied. Plain and simple. Just admit it and move on."

Turns out I didn't lie.....didn't it?

I never lie.

yes, you did lie.

4 is not more than 5, no matter how hard you try to spin it, chunky.

 

[xsited1]

….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.

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

By party
The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

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%?

 

[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.

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

By party
The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

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%?

When Obama won in '08, it was by 7%.

Substantially more?

 

[del]

….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.

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

By party
The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now for a lesson in the English language:

sub·stan·tial·ly/səbˈstanCHəlē/
Adverb:
To a great or significant extent: "profits grew substantially".
For the most part; essentially.
Synonyms:
essentially

 

[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.

 

[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.....