• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: Politics & News... Have at it.

XPOFAN said:
11159955_908456639216840_3825691246571803349_n.jpg
Click to expand...

you really must have a hate on for conservatives, because of your insistence on posting inaccurate material that only perpetuates hate and more division. Facts be damned, right? Well no....something from politifact, like a fact check.

**************************************************************​
Steele says GOP fought hard for civil rights bills in 1960s

On ABC's This Week, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele -- his party's first African-American chairman -- made a point of arguing that his party had been on the forefront of civil rights when the landmark act Rand was referring to was passed in 1964, as well as the Voting Rights Act that passed the following year.

"Our party has always had a strong view on this issue," Steele told ABC's Jake Tapper. "We fought very hard in the '60s to get the civil rights bill passed as well as the voting rights bill."

We decided to see whether Steele was correct.

The Civil Rights Act -- which is best known for barring discrimination in public accommodations -- passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964 by a margin of 290-130. When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).
Click to expand...

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).

In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans supporting the bill.

So it's clear that Republican support for both bills was deep. But to make sure we weren't missing something, we contacted a number of scholars who have studied that period, asking whether Republicans were dragged into supporting the bills reluctantly, or whether they took frontline roles in advancing them.
Click to expand...

Democrats deserve credit for being the driving force behind the legislation, our experts said, particularly Johnson, who had only been in office for three months yet who staked his own re-election prospects on a tough, divisive legislative battle. Other crucial Democratic players were Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana and Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota, who had been championing the issue of civil rights for a decade and a half.

But Republicans took leading positions as well, including Rep. Charles (Mac) Mathias of Maryland and Sen. Jacob Javits of New York. And during the 1950s, a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, had supported a civil rights legislation, though he never signed anything as sweeping as either the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act.

In the strategic challenge of getting the Civil Rights Act passed, Democrats knew that they would need to reach out to Republicans in order to overcome their own party's splits on the issue -- especially in the Senate, where a determined minority of one-third of the chamber could block consideration of a bill. (Today that number is two-fifths.)

The key to Senate passage of the Civil Rights Act was winning the support of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., our experts said. By various accounts, Dirksen had some reservations with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act, but Mansfield and Humphrey "worked very closely" with him, and "key parts of the bill were worked out in Dirksen’s office in the evenings," said U.S. Senate Historian Donald A. Ritchie. Other midwestern Republicans followed Dirksen's lead and supported the bill. Once the filibuster was broken, Time magazine put Dirksen on its cover.

"You can gauge Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in various ways, but you have to give them real credit," said University of Kansas political scientist Burdett Loomis, who called Dirksen "a tough, veteran politician, and a pragmatist of the first order."
Click to expand...

Back to Steele's quote: "We fought very hard in the '60s to get the civil rights bill passed as well as the voting rights bill."

The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it's also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time. Both of these factors are enough to earn Steele a rating of True.
Click to expand...

rulings%2Ftom-true.gif

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/
 
northernlou said:
except that's not what the rioter's are there for.
Click to expand...

The rioting is a byproduct of the things that Angelos was talking about. We're devolving into a fascist police state and the only thing people care about is how much they pay in taxes or whether they'll be able to go to the ballgame.
 
northernlou said:
you really must have a hate on for conservatives, because of your insistence on posting inaccurate material that only perpetuates hate and more division. Facts be damned, right? Well no....something from politifact, like a fact check.

**************************************************************​
Steele says GOP fought hard for civil rights bills in 1960s

On ABC's This Week, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele -- his party's first African-American chairman -- made a point of arguing that his party had been on the forefront of civil rights when the landmark act Rand was referring to was passed in 1964, as well as the Voting Rights Act that passed the following year.

"Our party has always had a strong view on this issue," Steele told ABC's Jake Tapper. "We fought very hard in the '60s to get the civil rights bill passed as well as the voting rights bill."

We decided to see whether Steele was correct.









rulings%2Ftom-true.gif

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/
Click to expand...

Eisenhower/Rockerfeller Republicans no longer exist today. You've only got the far right reactionaries and religious wingnuts running things now. Those guys couldn't get elected to lead the GOP today. They'd be branded as socialists. Even Reagan, who they treat like a secular saint, couldn't get their votes for a lot of the stuff he did while in office. The Republican Party lost the plot (and the middle of the political spectrum where most voters reside philosophically) a long time ago. What a few of them did in the 60's hardly matters today. Individual GOP politicians may have supported the Civil Rights Act but the GOP candidate for President in 1964 was "Bomb 'em" Barry Goldwater.
 
Last edited:
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Eisenhower/Rockerfeller Republicans no longer exist today. You've only got the far right reactionaries and religious wingnuts running things now. Those guys couldn't get elected to lead the GOP today. They'd be branded as socialists. Even Reagan, who they treat like a secular saint, couldn't get their votes for a lot of the stuff he did while in office. The Republican Party lost the plot (and the middle of the political spectrum where most voters reside philosophically) a long time ago. What a few of them did in the 60's hardly matters today. Individual GOP politicians may have supported the Civil Rights Act but the GOP candidate for President in 1964 was "Bomb 'em" Barry Goldwater.
Click to expand...

And you think today's Marxist democrats are anything like JFK? For every action there is a reaction. Remember that.

Anyway, that doesn't pertain one bit to the reasoning behind my providing a little civil rights primer, for the fact deficient myth peddling Xpofan. There is just too much malignant stupid in the world to stand for that.
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
The rioting is a byproduct of the things that Angelos was talking about. We're devolving into a fascist police state and the only thing people care about is how much they pay in taxes or whether they'll be able to go to the ballgame.
Click to expand...

We agree on that. We are devolving into a fascist police state. Funny how you don't also hold the 'left' responsible for that.

But we will disagree on people's expectations. There is also a large element of lazy a$$es who would rather take, than contribute to that tax base you hold so dear. Those rioter's were there for themselves and organized by racist's who would beat and rob you for sins of the past. Sins that modern society has bent itself over to mitigate in the form of an ever growing welfare State that will not be able to meet it's obligations in the not too distant future. As it stands, the fastest growing Gov't component today, is entitlement spending.
 
Street artist Wanksy spray paints penises around potholes to get them filled.

Pesky potholes have been known to stick around for years in some cities before crews are finally sent to repair them. Obscene graffiti, on the other hand, will often disappear as quickly as someone can phone in a complaint.

With this in mind, an anonymous U.K. artist who goes by the handle Wanksy began spray painting giant penis shapes around the potholes in his Greater Manchester town.

His goal? To attract the attention of local council and get the potholes fixed.

"The roads of Manchester are in an appalling state... I have cyclist friends who have been hospitalised," he told the Manchester Evening News last week. "They damage vehicles. Sometimes it's hard to know which pothole caused the damage because there are so many."

It appears as though his efforts are paying off.

The Evening News reports that within 48 hours of Wanksy's first tagging session at the beginning of April, "many of the potholes" he'd drawn around the town of Bury had been filled.
Click to expand...

article

wanksy.jpg

wanksy-3.jpg


Wanksy's facebook profile.
 
Emmett Macfarlane retweeted Аrpon Basu

That's what Jim Prentice said

"We honestly don't have that many adjustments to make" - Michel Therrien
 
XPOFAN said:
Аrpon Basu ‏
I guess Alberta and Quebec are more alike than we thought.
Click to expand...

The NDP are going to literally kill Alberta. They want to restore budget cuts, increase corporate taxes, increase taxes on the rich. They are full of inexperienced socialists. Alberta is done. So yes, Alberta will end up being more like Quebec.
 
Taxing the rich? You mean, making those who can afford to pay more actually pay more? Wow, what a radical concept.

Yeah, society is doomed.
 
I dont like the Liberal plan, I only end up paying more. I got the nice family tax cut this year which goes away and then part of my income will be hit at 33% ugh
 
WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou said:
Taxing the rich? You mean, making those who can afford to pay more actually pay more? Wow, what a radical concept.

Yeah, society is doomed.
Click to expand...

No what's better is having the rich pay for everything so other people don't need to work as hard, that sounds a whole lot better. I am not a high income earner, but I firmly believe there should be a flat tax rate. Why should people who earn more be penalized for it, just because they can 'afford' it? That's pretty stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top