For someone who "laments" civil debate

• Divided and Conquered - sirpercy
  • Yes, but to many Cons, Bush can do no wrong. - If he ordered them to jump - sm
    • For someone who "laments" civil debate - sirpercy
      • I personally don't hate Republicans. - PK
        • Pure hysteria, much of what you say. - Nina
          • The flames have begun. They were started by you. - PK
            • Libs cons. It's just an abbreviation. sm - Democrat
              • Sure it is...that's why she says CON not cons and it's all in caps. sm - sm
              • Her true reason is to attack. - PK
                • No, my real reason was to point out your duplicity. Which I did. - Nina
        • Typos and mistakes - sorry - PK
      • It was not meant as an attack, I - was merely trying to point out - sm
        • Words can come off sounding like an attack, because these messages lack..sm - Democrat
          • I feel the very same way about Hillary. - PK
          • Yes, I agree with you, Democrat, on all you said. - nm
          • Oh, I see now that was to Sir Percy. sm - Democrat
  • I agree with you Sir Percy. sm - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

During the civil war the rich people, who owned slaves, worked up the poor people, who did not own slaves, into a frenzy about how the north was bossing them around, how they should leave the union and it was an ideological war.  All the rich people left their plantations and went north until the war was over.  The poor people fought out, brother against brother, without shoes, for an idea.  The rich people came back after it was over and kicked the freed slaves off their land, right into the laps of the poor people who had to compete with them now for jobs.  The rich stayed rich, alive, and healthy, and all of the poor people were slaughtered. 

Are all you republicans rich? Don't fight for them, they are on vacation.

to be something we would do on a country wide basis.  I mean...what is the point if you can't leave your state because other states don't accept them.  I meant this as a country wide thing.  If the whole country recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage kind of thing.  I guess I wasn't specific enough. 

As it goes, same sex marriage is only accepted in the states that allow it.  I mean...you have to live in those states to have the rights of marriage...right?  Please correct me if I'm wrong on that one because I really don't know. 

Although you are correct that Lincoln was a Republican, in those days, Republican was not what it is today, nor Democrat, no Tory nor Whig, etc. How could it be, the times they have-a-changed. He called himself a Democrat many times during his career and was extremely anti-slavery but did not fall in with the abolitionists. What with Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, Jacobins, etc. it would be really difficult to say one party abolished slavery.People from all sides supported and opposed it. Lincoln just happened to be president and the **War of Northern Aggression** quelled those who had seceded.

 Lincoln was very anti-war, did not like the idea at all so the civil war was distasteful to say the least. He did, however, have no problem enlisting and personally fighting in the European versus Sac Indians war which makes him not my most favorite president...but then, everyone makes mistakes. He did that in his younger years.

The civil rights act I have always believed rests with LBJ. He is not my favorite either. In fact, I did not like him much at all, but he did, in his predecessor's memory, carry the civil rights act to fruition. I remember him saying on the day that he signed it, the south is lost to Democrats as of this day. Here is a link of the timeline. It is pretty straightforward, comes from LBJ for kids site so it is not overly lengthy or boring.

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/lbjforkids/civil_timeline.shtm

Actually in the House 100% of the southern Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act so it seems you may have skewed the results a bit in order to generalize.  Actually the vote went by geography rather than party lines as is obvious below. 

As far as the Dems having a lot of catching up to do....politics change over time.  Democratic affiliation changed with FDR.  Perhaps you have a lot of catching up to do yourself!

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT VOTING

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7%-93%)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0%-100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94%-6%)
  
• Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1-20   (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
  
• Southern Republicans: 0-1   (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
  
• Northern Democrats: 45-1   (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
  
• Northern Republicans: 27-5   (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Civil and political rights are a class of rights ensuring things such as the protection of peoples' physical integrity; procedural fairness in law; protection from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc; individual freedom of belief, speech, association, and the press; and political participation.

So acorrding to you, we should just scrap this whole civil rights thing that would protect those who do not have as large a voice and go for a majority vote? 

As a nation, we did not used to spend so much time splitting hairs over words.

What if back when the 19th amendment was enacted, they had said:  Women having the right to 'vote' would upset men.   So instead of 'voting' we're going to call it 'ballot casting.'  That way, women can have the same rights as men, but only men can be 'voters' and won't feel they're losing their special status. 

How about if during the civil rights movement, when segregation was eliminated, instead of integration they had called it:  'The right to attend the same schools and go to the same restaurants and ride in the front of the bus'?  Calling institutions 'integrated' would upset the southern states. 

How about when women began to demand 'equal pay for equal work'?  What if they had said:  Okay, you can have the money and the responsibility, maybe even the corner office, but only a man can be called VP of Sales.  Instead, your title will have to be something else, maybe Sales Coordinator, othewise the men who are VPs will get angry. 

I suppose a fair number of women or blacks would have considered this a win, because they were gaining the benefit, if not the exact status of the changes.  But a fair number of folks rightly would have said:  Huh?  Aren't these silly distinctions?  A lot of people would have wondered why they didn't just shut up and 'settle.'  

If a civil union conveys such benefits as inheritance rights, parental rights, credit rights, insurance rights, the right to make medical decisions for a spouse then, really, what's in a name?

House Debate and Passage
The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 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. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill. 

I thought after reading your post that there was something wrong with that statement, Republicans passed the civil rights act; Huh?? Then I remembered at that time the south was predominantly Democratic and I believe those elected officials were voting more on their constituents' demands than on the platform of the Democratic party. That also explains why Johnson said, **As of today, Democrats have lost the south.** and he was right. It looks to me like a bipartisan deal. I got the above information from the Everett Dirksen Library Archives.

This also demonstrates to me how a party can change or evolve its platforms. The Democratic south was once **the little people, the working class,  the most good for the most people party.** After the civil rights act the south became predominantly Republican and remains so. In 1964 the south did not want equal rights for women, blacks, religions. They wanted things to stay the way they were. I think the Republicans provided that for them. In 1964 I think it safe to say that WASP was pretty much the bulk of the Republican party and that appealed to the south who were being forced at gunpoint to change.

I don't know about the suffrage movement but I always wonder if they caught the same flack then that NOW gets now. I am going to look that up though.

Never in my lifetime have issues gotten so ugly/hateful.  This will be the first illegal election in history if Sen. Obama is elected.  People do not care that he does not meet the requirements to be President.  They will go against the constitution just to get him elected.  Why?  I know there are a lot of people who would like Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President.  If Obama who is not a native born, and is possibly not even a US Citizen can be elected and have the constitution violated for him, then we should be able to do it for Gov. Schwarzenegger.  There are so many people who will say we have to protect the constitution, yet they’ll turn a blind eye when it comes to electing someone who is not an American born, and who is possibly still a citizen of Indonesia (forget that he is Muslin, I don’t care about his religion, he may possibly be a citizen of another country).  We have a candidate who is so busy running around like a chicken with his head cut off suppressing the truth from Americans, and there are Americans attacking others (no that that girl with a B in her face – I hope she is prosecuted for what she has done), but others who attack (verbally and physically) anyone who is not allowing this lie to proceed.  Mr. Obama was supposed to be checked out thoroughly before he could run and the DNC failed to do that.  Mr. Obama is calling for the health records of all candidates, yet he won’t release his own.  Sorry but a one-page statement from his doctor saying Mr. Obama is healthy, that's all you need to know, with no details whatsoever (and from someone whose parents died at a young age and he smoked his whole life and took drugs and drank) the American people have a right to know this – especially since their side is pushing to have Palin & McCains “full” records be known to the public and people are screaming and shouting its their right to know the full health records of the republicans, shouldn’t that go for Obama too?  Then there is the issue of his school records.  Why is he desperately trying to suppress those.  Most likely it will show he is a citizen of Indonesia and never became a US Citizen.  You know if a democrat president is elected fine, just let it be a legal one.  Follow the constitution and not this love-fest everyone is sharing towards Obama.  Some good democrats that would make fine presidnets are Richardson & Kucinich.  I'd even be okay with Edwards.

But I say we are heading toward a civil war because we have people already threatening that if Obama does not win there will be “riots in the streets like we haven’t seen”, but if he is elected and it is illegal there will be riots of another kind.  You are going to have so many Americans angry and disenfranchised with the government that if you thought the Boston Tea Party was ugly this will be worse.

Then we have the issue of the every day American citizens.  We are suffering.  There’s no doubt about it.  We are heading into a depression (do not blame Bush for the whole thing as it started its downward spiral under the Carter administration and continued through the Clinton administration, and yes some republicans are to blame), but Americans are suffering.  We are losing our jobs, our homes, cannot afford to send our kids to college, let alone buy gas and groceries or go to the doctor.  More and more people’s savings are being wiped out and their retirement plans are worthless.  Yet the politicians (both republican AND democrat) are getting richer and richer.  The latest saying in the Washington political scene is “if you were not a millionaire before you came in you will be one when you leave”.  Politicians are no longer working for the American people; they are working for themselves and their rich friends and against us.  They don’t care about us - they don’t care one iota.  They have made so many loopholes to protect themselves and have lied so many times they are covering their lies with lies and saying exactly what they think we want to hear.

All I say is if Sen. Obama is elected, the election will be a fraud, the office of President will be a fraud, and with the three branches of office (house, senate, and president) ALL being democrat, he will not be impeached for fraud and they will continue on with their illegal activities.  And the country will see a civil distress.  Why should we abide by laws when our government doesn’t.

People need to wake up.  The constitution is being violated and they are all okay with that.  It’s all very sickening.  I just think its disgraceful that people would rather see our country destroyed than to elect Senator McCain.  Sure I wish it was someone else (R. Paul, M. Romney, D. Hunter or any of the others, but its not).  If McCain gets in don’t worry, it will only be four years and then another election will be held and maybe this time a candidate will be chosen on the democratic side that is legal.  That is of course if the Mayan calendar is wrong.

Listen to the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfV8iXiB9Xg

DH said its disgusting that he's laughing about it.

you are the biggest hypocrite ever.  I was debating with you, but just because you didn't like what I said you said I was attacking you.

Again, you're are a sad individual....hateful sad individual.

First it was that **we couldn't debate,** now it is ** persecution.** When did I say I was persecuted. I merely said the Crusades have been seen in a negative light for as long as I can remember and suddenly they are being seen in a good light. That's all, kaput, the end. Martyr...don't think so.

I don't know how you can live with such disdain for all liberals and all Arab peoples and have any peace or joy in your life. That is a full-time job, being angry.

Once again, this is a subject I feel very strongly about.  I applaud anyone who broadens their education by learning a foreign language or learning anything new for that matter.

That being said, I believe that anyone who wishes to immigrate to THIS country should wish to embrace our language, our customs and our way of life, not the other way around.  I am speaking here of the illegal INVADERS.  I imagine that those who become citizens through legal channels, most likely learn English.  I am sick to death of hearing babbling everywhere I go, to the grocery store, to restaurants, everywhere.  My ancestors immigrated LEGALLY from Ireland and Germany.  The other side of the ancestors were herded up and driven to a reservation like so many cattle.  I live next door to the Cherokee Nation and not once have I heard them speaking in their native tongue outside of their Powwows, although they strive to keep the language alive. They don't require a press 1 for Cherokee on every telephone message system. 

If this language issue isn't enough, it infuriates me that the Mexicans can come here to OUR country and march in their demonstrations while waving their MEXICAN flag.

Unfortunately, the reason we have to learn THEIR language to commuicate is most likely the majority who enter our country illegally are ignorant in even the most basic education and thus not likely to be able to learn a foreign language i.e. English.

You are correct, if we aren't willing to stand up for the heritage of our country; we may as well learn the language as one day we will most likely be part of Mexico and Spanish will be the official language.

per debate commission and Obama. Let's rock.

been more indepth and not just the same old ho hum we have been hearing since the start.  Then again, it was only the first debate and hopefully they will get better.  We have a right to hear specifics from both candidates.  We have a right to see them put on the spot to see how well they handle themselves.  I want specific questions directed to each candidate and I was specific answers with details.  I don't want just a pleasant little Q&A session of fluff. 

I was kinda struck by how Obama kept harping on the 10 billion a day (was it?) spent in Iraq...but talking about more troops to Afghanistan.  Three brigades I think he said he would send.  Okay.  So, we are just going to transfer the 10 billion a day to Afghanistan instead of Iraq.  Still going to spend it, just in a different place.  I was almost yelling at the TV at McCain...ASK HIM ABOUT THAT.  lol.

All kidding aside....what I took away from it was Obama leans heavily on Joe Biden for the foreign policy stuff because he is just out of his element.  I thought Obama looked uncomfortable, and I got really tired of the smirk after awhile.

On the other hand...in all fairness, John needs to drop the "Miss Congeniality" line.  I was talking to the TV again..."we know, John, we KNOW."  lol. 

I think what makes Obama dangerous is his world view.  I do not say that to be mean....I just don't think he is realistic about it.  On the one hand he praises General Petraeus (that he got right), and turns right around and won't own up to the fact that the surge worked (even though O'Reilly got him to admit it).  Just goes back to the war was wrong.  The country is still divided on that.  You can't turn back time...and to lose it now would be wrong.  Petraeus DID say Obama's plan for a timetable was wrong.  I would think more of him if he would say "okay john, you were wrong about the war, but we're there and can't change that.  And I was wrong about the surge."  I know...dream on...lol.

It was a little alarming to me, facing what we are facing with this "rescue" bill, he STILL talked about spending bazillion dollars.  He would not, when pressed, name ONE thing he would put on hold.  That just makes NO sense to me, with the "rescue" bill, the deficit, owing money to China yada yada....and wants to fund that stuff with stiff taxes for business...in a down economy.  Sorry, I think that's NUTS.   Sorry....that also tells me he is either not real smart, or trying to get the vote of people who can't see past "he is going to lower my taxes and give me free health care."  I really don't think he is not really smart, so if he gets selected he will be saying  "I wanted to do these things, but the economy won't let me."  

I have heard people talk all morning (on the Dem side) about how he mentioned the middle class and John McCain didn't.  Frankly, the way it appeared to me, was Obama was pandering to the have nots and McCain is not going to promise something he knows he couldn't deliver in the economic situation we find ourselves in.  I thought it was kinda patronizing actually.  McCain understands that small businesses and yes, nasty corporations, drive this economy and employ a huge number of Americans.  In an economic downturn higher taxes on businesses does not work.

Another thing I think McCain should have JUMPED on is that Obama supports the Hank Paulson rescue plan endorsed by Bush and John McCain doesn't like it as it stands.  Obama is siding with BUSH!  Oh well....lol.

the results would be the same no matter who the moderator or modulator or referee or interpretor was.

After watching the debates I have finally made up my mind.  We can not afford to have the angry, unstable John McCain in the White House.  He was not only angry, he was sarcastic.  My husband and I kept laughing waiting for him to explode.  I happen to live in a state that is leaning toward McCain.  I notice on the local TV station's forum, 5 people who have been avid McCain supporters have said they changed their  mind after watching the debates.  It was evident that Obama was angry a couple of times, and I don't blame him but he never lost his "cool."

The race issue is going to play a part in this election but I wonder, has anyone considered that Obama is both black and white?  Maybe, just maybe, he could be the one to finally put the race issue to rest.  Many blacks will vote for him because he is "black."  Many whites will not vote for him because he is "black."  Ridiculous.  He is equally black and white.  Since Lou Dobbs is not running in the first place, he has no chance of being elected.  I have decided I will take a chance on Obama.  If he turns out to be the worst president in history, well, I'll come back and say I helped elect him.  The only real issue I have with him is that of  his church affiliation.  I noticed that was not brought up in the debate so I can only assume that McCain has investigated that thoroughly and found that there is nothing there that would benefit him.

And as for "Joe the plumber"........I have no doubt that with his notoriaty he will own his own plumbing company but what about my son, "Bill the plumber" who also aspires to own his own plumbing company?  My son, "Bill the plumber" has been inclined to vote for McCain but doesn't think either candidate will help him own his own company and neither do I.

I didn't hear anything about "Jane the MT."  What about all the MTs who can't find a job?  That might be a good talking point.......did anyone notice that Obama wants to reduce medical costs by putting medical records on the internet?  Can anyone say bye-bye medical transcriptionists?  Of course that is already in the works so really won't make much difference.

that have attempted to be started on the CON board.  Unfortunately, no one seems interested in engaging in an intelligent discussion there.  Instead, they apparently prefer to come here and vent.  I have no idea why you're congratulating me.  I don't believe I've chased one LIBERAL away from the LIBERAL BOARD.

And I obviously don't deserve any congratulations for chasing the CON trolls from this board because they've entrenched themselves here and won't leave.  Maybe your congratulatory wishes should instead be directed at them.