In civil rights history, what happened to the democrats and republicans?

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
Like I said, were he to veto all the bills containing spending increases or pork barrel projects, he would never have passed a major bill.

Maybe you should go see how riders are attached to bills before continuing this debate?

Maybe you should look up how Clinton vetoed entire major bills, forcing government shut-downs, until the budget was to his liking.

Reagan had his chance. He didn't use it. The Republicans in the Senate had their chance to reject and/or ammend the spending. They didn't use it. Are you (A) afraid to admit this issue or (B) an idiot?

A few years later and what happened? A Republican-controlled House, Senate, and presidency increased the non-military spending by 44% in the first 6 years of Bush Jr's office. Add to that the massive increase in military spending for the wars. Republicans just simply aren't low-spending any more. Ever since the high-spending Dixiecrats filled their party, they have not had the ability to fullfill their fiscally-conservative rhetoric.

Me: I'm a fiscally-conservative libertarian who has to vote for Democrats in most races. However, I have voted Republican and Independant if they were the right people for the job. As a fiscal conservative, I was unhappy with Reagan's performance and I'm unhappy with the current Republicans performance. And I'm unhappy with the high spending of the Democrats in the past. The blame goes all around.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Great, now conservatives are working their revisionist magic to make it seem like slavery wasn't conservative, desegregation wasn't conservative, and voting rights wasn't liberal. It's amazing when Republicans brag about their party being "the party of Lincoln", completely ignoring the fact that freeing the slaves and enforcing their voting rights as citizens was LIBERAL, while the opposition was CONSERVATIVE, like modern Republicans.
YES the parties did switch liberal/conservative places.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Ryan
Racism and inequality has no one political affiliation - never has, never will.

Yep. You can't just lump all ignorant people into one camp. Both sides had their bad apples. Don't think for a minute there weren't slaves in the North and that they were all for desegregation.

Your view of the South must have come from the movies.

You have a very white washed view of Southern history. The Democratic party was the party of Jim Crow until FDR.

This makes me laugh. FDR did jack ****** to help blacks and no change came until the 1960's and even then it was more of a bipartison thing. I also think it is quite amusing how people somehow view the North as "not racist" and the South as racist when the reality is that both were just as equally racist. I have a professor who has said that in some of the interviews she has done on black people who moved from the South to the North in the 1930's through 1960's that some of the worst racism they encountered was in the North.

total bunk. I have a picture of my mom in her grade school in the early 30's and of a class of about 15 there are 4 black kids in the picture with her. her high school year book from 1945 has many black students in it. This was in PA.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Ryan
Racism and inequality has no one political affiliation - never has, never will.

Yep. You can't just lump all ignorant people into one camp. Both sides had their bad apples. Don't think for a minute there weren't slaves in the North and that they were all for desegregation.

Your view of the South must have come from the movies.

You have a very white washed view of Southern history. The Democratic party was the party of Jim Crow until FDR.

This makes me laugh. FDR did jack ****** to help blacks and no change came until the 1960's and even then it was more of a bipartison thing. I also think it is quite amusing how people somehow view the North as "not racist" and the South as racist when the reality is that both were just as equally racist. I have a professor who has said that in some of the interviews she has done on black people who moved from the South to the North in the 1930's through 1960's that some of the worst racism they encountered was in the North.

total bunk. I have a picture of my mom in her grade school in the early 30's and of a class of about 15 there are 4 black kids in the picture with her. her high school year book from 1945 has many black students in it. This was in PA.

Anyone saying that the North was "equally racist" is whitewashing history with political correctness. There may have been plenty of racists in Pennsylvania, but judging by the absence of segregation, it should be obvious that the North was less racist than the South. I've never heard of any northern slaves using the southern cross constellation to get to freedom in the south.

Edit: Pretty weird, I used the term "white washed" before reading it in that above post.

 

[TheSlamma]

Look at the Red/Blue map during Lincolns time and the one during the Bush/Kerry election. Almost complete opposite.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlordRacism is now one of the core values of the stalwart republican supporters,

by your argument, as a republican, i must be a racist?

moron.

Find a guy with a Confederate flag on his pickup and ask which party he votes for. Also ask him if he supports constitutional bans on gay marriage, abolishment of minimum wage, etc. Write down which side of the party line he falls on, and get back to us.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
Like I said, were he to veto all the bills containing spending increases or pork barrel projects, he would never have passed a major bill.

Maybe you should go see how riders are attached to bills before continuing this debate?

Maybe you should look up how Clinton vetoed entire major bills, forcing government shut-downs, until the budget was to his liking.

Reagan had his chance. He didn't use it. The Republicans in the Senate had their chance to reject and/or ammend the spending. They didn't use it. Are you (A) afraid to admit this issue or (B) an idiot?

I was alive when Reagan was in office. He vetoed his fair share of bills as well. But just as Clinton did, he compromised to get the job done.

As a libertarian, though, I would think you'd take note of Milton Friedman's praise of Reagan as the admin to pass the least new regulations in history.

There is nothing I am afraid to admit and unlike you, I actually remember what those years were like.

Just so you don't think I'm talking out of my ass like you are:

Clinton vetoed a total of 24 bills in his two terms (a majority of which had the entire congress made up of the opposing party). 8 had override attempts. Only 1 override was successful.

Reagan vetoed a total of 36 bills in his two terms (with a split congress the entire time). 14 had override attempts. 9 overrides were successful.

So you see, all that crowing... all that insulting... and you're still wrong.

I'll await your apology... even though I know it wont be coming because quite ironically, it appears the very attributes you try to pin on me are actually your own.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlordRacism is now one of the core values of the stalwart republican supporters,

by your argument, as a republican, i must be a racist?

moron.

Find a guy with a Confederate flag on his pickup and ask which party he votes for. Also ask him if he supports constitutional bans on gay marriage, abolishment of minimum wage, etc. Write down which side of the party line he falls on, and get back to us.

You'd be very surprised in the South... especially if that voter is a union member.

Your political stereotypes aren't as set in stone as you think they are.

In fact, ask your average union grunt what his positions are on gay marriage and abortion and you'll find opinions out of step with Democrat leadership. They vote Democrat for union support and because they've been snowed into believing the Dems support the little guy.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Great, now conservatives are working their revisionist magic to make it seem like slavery wasn't conservative, desegregation wasn't conservative, and voting rights wasn't liberal. It's amazing when Republicans brag about their party being "the party of Lincoln", completely ignoring the fact that freeing the slaves and enforcing their voting rights as citizens was LIBERAL, while the opposition was CONSERVATIVE, like modern Republicans.
YES the parties did switch liberal/conservative places.

Not true at all. In fact history shows the leading vocalists against slavery in the north were conservative churches.

"Conservative" has nothing to do with racism and slavery.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
I was alive when Reagan was in office. He vetoed his fair share of bills as well. But just as Clinton did, he compromised to get the job done.

As a libertarian, though, I would think you'd take note of Milton Friedman's praise of Reagan as the admin to pass the least new regulations in history.

There is nothing I am afraid to admit and unlike you, I actually remember what those years were like.

Just so you don't think I'm talking out of my ass like you are:

Clinton vetoed a total of 24 bills in his two terms (a majority of which had the entire congress made up of the opposing party). 8 had override attempts. Only 1 override was successful.

Reagan vetoed a total of 36 bills in his two terms (with a split congress the entire time). 14 had override attempts. 9 overrides were successful.

All that stuff is irrelevant. Reagan did some good things - limiting spending was NOT one of them because he didn't limit spending. I'm not here saying Reagan was a bad president or that I'm against what he did as a whole. However, it is a simple fact that he didn't do much (if at all) to ever stop spending increases.

You could post that the sky is blue and you'd be correct, but that wouldn't address the fact that the Rs in the Senate and the R in the presidency passed the bills.

So you see, all that crowing... all that insulting... and you're still wrong.

I'll await your apology... even though I know it wont be coming because quite ironically, it appears the very attributes you try to pin on me are actually your own.

I won't appologize for stating the truth. The Rs in the Senate passed the spending bills, the R in the presidency signed it into law. However, I will appologize for fighting this battle publically. I'm sorry for that, it should have been all private messages.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Queasy
It's hard to say because the definition of racism has changed so much. Back in the civil rights era, racism meant things like segregation and oppression. Nowadays, you get called a racist for not supporting things like affirmative action (racial preferences).

i would say it's more racist to support affirmative action...because you're essentially saying blacks are too dumb to make it on their own so they need an unfair advantage. That's true racism, versus some hick from a small town that's never met a black person before being "afraid" of blacks.

The Democratic party is the true racist party. Elitist jerkoffs.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlordRacism is now one of the core values of the stalwart republican supporters,

by your argument, as a republican, i must be a racist?

moron.

Find a guy with a Confederate flag on his pickup and ask which party he votes for. Also ask him if he supports constitutional bans on gay marriage, abolishment of minimum wage, etc. Write down which side of the party line he falls on, and get back to us.

are you kidding? poor confederate flag hicks vote democrat...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
I was alive when Reagan was in office. He vetoed his fair share of bills as well. But just as Clinton did, he compromised to get the job done.

As a libertarian, though, I would think you'd take note of Milton Friedman's praise of Reagan as the admin to pass the least new regulations in history.

There is nothing I am afraid to admit and unlike you, I actually remember what those years were like.

Just so you don't think I'm talking out of my ass like you are:

Clinton vetoed a total of 24 bills in his two terms (a majority of which had the entire congress made up of the opposing party). 8 had override attempts. Only 1 override was successful.

Reagan vetoed a total of 36 bills in his two terms (with a split congress the entire time). 14 had override attempts. 9 overrides were successful.

All that stuff is irrelevant. You could post that the sky is blue and you'd be correct, but that wouldn't address the fact that the Rs in the Senate and the R in the presidency passed the bills.

So you see, all that crowing... all that insulting... and you're still wrong.

I'll await your apology... even though I know it wont be coming because quite ironically, it appears the very attributes you try to pin on me are actually your own.

I won't appologize for stating the truth. The Rs in the Senate passed the spending bills, the R in the presidency signed it into law. However, I will appologize for fighting this battle publically. I'm sorry for that, it should have been all private messages.

How very sad that you cannot admit you've been wrong on point after point after point.

On this point I am right, yet again. Reagan did use his veto power. More than any president since. And the split congress overrode his vetos at a rate yet again higher than any president since. (The only recent president with more vetos was Ford)

And you said:

a Reagan didn't use his veto power... or at least, not as much as Clinton did.
b Congress couldn't override his vetos.

Wrong on both counts. Wrong by a near record setting number, actually.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
a Reagan didn't use his veto power... or at least, not as much as Clinton did.
b Congress couldn't override his vetos.

Wrong on both counts. Wrong by a near record setting number, actually.

Reagan used vetos, but not on spending issues. That is the crux of our dispute. That, and if the Republicans in the Senate would have stopped the bill, Reagan wouldn't have even had to face it. Even with a 1 vote Senate majority, they could have stopped spending increases. But they didn't.

I'm out of this thread though. Have fun getting in any last shots that you want.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
a Reagan didn't use his veto power... or at least, not as much as Clinton did.
b Congress couldn't override his vetos.

Wrong on both counts. Wrong by a near record setting number, actually.

Reagan used vetos, but not on spending issues. That is the crux of our dispute. That, and if the Republicans in the Senate would have stopped the bill, Reagan wouldn't have even had to face it. Even with a 1 vote Senate majority, they could have stopped spending increases. But they didn't.

I'm out of this thread though. Have fun getting in any last shots that you want.

Are you kidding me???

Why do you keep pulling "facts" out of your ass?

Of the overrides, 7 of the 9 were bills spending money on various programs.

Hell, in his first 3 years Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills.

In fact, most of Reagan's vetoes were used on spending bills.

Contrast that with Clinton who used his veto power a majority of the time to KEEP spending on government programs.

BTW, after more research I'd like to revise my numbers.

Reagan had 78 vetoes with 9 overrides. Clinton had 37 with 2 overrides.

Yet again, you are wrong.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
a Reagan didn't use his veto power... or at least, not as much as Clinton did.
b Congress couldn't override his vetos.

Wrong on both counts. Wrong by a near record setting number, actually.

Reagan used vetos, but not on spending issues. That is the crux of our dispute. That, and if the Republicans in the Senate would have stopped the bill, Reagan wouldn't have even had to face it. Even with a 1 vote Senate majority, they could have stopped spending increases. But they didn't.

I'm out of this thread though. Have fun getting in any last shots that you want.

Are you kidding me???

Why do you keep pulling "facts" out of your ass?

Of the overrides, 7 of the 9 were bills spending money on various programs.

Hell, in his first 3 years Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills.

In fact, most of Reagan's vetoes were used on spending bills.

Contrast that with Clinton who used his veto power a majority of the time to KEEP spending on government programs.

BTW, after more research I'd like to revise my numbers.

Reagan had 78 vetoes with 9 overrides. Clinton had 37 with 2 overrides.

Yet again, you are wrong.

lol dullard, Pwnage of the Year.