• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Parliamentarian Ruling Kills an Option for Moving Health Bill

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
That's the single most retarded thing you have ever posted. You're basically saying that the only reason Scott Brown won is because he would vote against healthcare. That is by far the most ridiculous thing ever. The reason Scott Brown won was because his opponent was a bad choice and very unlikeable. She said multiple things that put her in the disfavor of the people.


So true!!!
The two most hammered repub talking points, the two of their biggest lies, are that Scott B. only won due to some sort of anti healthcare thing or anti democrat thing.
Maybe... just maybe… he was simply preferred over his opponent. After all, he looks good naked.
Also… Americans are not opposed to reform, especially so called Obama reform.
Over and over, time after time, when they poll Americans on the specifics in reform, like addressing pre existing or addressing life time limit caps or all the other specifics in the bill, Americans say "Oh...I’m for THAT change". So this crapola that Americans do not want reform is totally republican spin BS.
Republicans still believe if you say it on tv enough, that will make it fact.
Just, I might add, was the case in passing Medicare, and passing the 1960's civil rights bill.

If this were 1960 and civil rights, the republican pollsters would be asking "Do you want your white daughter to marry a black man? Yes or no?”.
Instead of the accurate question "do you believe in equal rights for all Americans?".

Then you’d hear republicans spinning over and over on the sunday news shows, "people are just against this civil rights thing... polls show that".

I think sane Americans see thru this typical republican BS.
 
He isn't a democrat, and beat a democrat to office. He single handedly stripped the public option. Continue to call him a democrat to be a disingenuous scumbag liar that you are.

If Lieberman single handedly stripped it, why didn't the White House include it in it's version that they are going to try to pass via reconciliation? I mean, are you saying that the WH can't find 50 Democratic Senators to vote yes on Public Option?

Use your head, public option was never intended to be in the bill.
 
If Lieberman single handedly stripped it, why didn't the White House include it in it's version that they are going to try to pass via reconciliation? I mean, are you saying that the WH can't find 50 Democratic Senators to vote yes on Public Option?

Use your head, public option was never intended to be in the bill.

At the time the Senate voted on its bill, the count for votes with the public option was 59 without Liebermann.

To get his 60th vote, he said he would only vote yes with the public option removed - so it had to be to pass.

The politics aren't totally static. If they were, we'd still have the same clear votes.

Many think we still do have plenty - but the White House has not helped.

40 Democratic Senators have signed a letter saying they want the public option in reconciliation, and more are believed to support it if they vote on it.

Is it 50? There's no clear proof, but you do have a point that there's no good reason for 10 to have dropped off. But what are the White House politics on it?

If Obama made any deals to get industry support for the bill involving this, it could be a problem. I don't know if he did. He still gives it lip service, that he'll support it.
 
By definition a Democrat belongs to The Democratic Party©.
Now, Lieberman has registered as a member of The Democratic Party©.

How can you argue that he is not a Democrat?

He might be registered to vote as a Democrat, but what party is he as a Senator? There's an official answer, and it's not (D) (unless I've missed some news).

Your disengenuosness after you have been repeatedly reminded he was the planned 2008 Republican VP nominess is disgusting.
 
At the time the Senate voted on its bill, the count for votes with the public option was 59 without Liebermann.

To get his 60th vote, he said he would only vote yes with the public option removed - so it had to be to pass.

The politics aren't totally static. If they were, we'd still have the same clear votes.

Many think we still do have plenty - but the White House has not helped.

40 Democratic Senators have signed a letter saying they want the public option in reconciliation, and more are believed to support it if they vote on it.

Is it 50? There's no clear proof, but you do have a point that there's no good reason for 10 to have dropped off. But what are the White House politics on it?

If Obama made any deals to get industry support for the bill involving this, it could be a problem. I don't know if he did. He still gives it lip service, that he'll support it.

You should already know the answer to that, if you are reading Glenn Greenwald. (The Democratic Party's deceitful game)
 
So true!!!
The two most hammered repub talking points, the two of their biggest lies, are that Scott B. only won due to some sort of anti healthcare thing or anti democrat thing.
Maybe... just maybe… he was simply preferred over his opponent. After all, he looks good naked.
Also… Americans are not opposed to reform, especially so called Obama reform.
Over and over, time after time, when they poll Americans on the specifics in reform, like addressing pre existing or addressing life time limit caps or all the other specifics in the bill, Americans say "Oh...I’m for THAT change". So this crapola that Americans do not want reform is totally republican spin BS.
Republicans still believe if you say it on tv enough, that will make it fact.
Just, I might add, was the case in passing Medicare, and passing the 1960's civil rights bill.

If this were 1960 and civil rights, the republican pollsters would be asking "Do you want your white daughter to marry a black man? Yes or no?”.
Instead of the accurate question "do you believe in equal rights for all Americans?".

Then you’d hear republicans spinning over and over on the sunday news shows, "people are just against this civil rights thing... polls show that".

I think sane Americans see thru this typical republican BS.

Ummm, the democrats were the ones against the civil rights bill of 1964. Short memory or revisionist teachings?

Do yourself a favor and look at the votes.
 
Ummm, the democrats were the ones against the civil rights bill of 1964. Short memory or revisionist teachings?

Do yourself a favor and look at the votes.
More like, the south was against the CRA of 1964 but don't let that get in the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region
By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

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 Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
 
More like, the south was against the CRA of 1964 but don't let that get in the way.

Hmm, the Democrat Party dominated the South didn't they? I mean, there were hardly any Republicans in office in the region, were there?

Kind of disingenuous to smear the Party of Lincoln with the tar brush of the Democrat Party, then dominated by segregationists.

Were the Democrats racist and segregationist because it won them elections? Or did they win elections because they were racist and segregationist?

The deflecting of Democrat partisans is tiresome. It is a failure to recognize and acknowledge the actual history of the organization.

And to what purpose? That the history will be forgotten under the repetition of distortion? Repeat a lie so many times that it become the fact?

Stay on course, kids.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, the Democrat Party dominated the South didn't they? I mean, there were hardly any Republicans in office in the region, were there?

Kind of disingenuous to smear the Party of Lincoln with the tar brush of the Democrat Party, then dominated by segregationists.

Were the Democrats racist and segregationist because it won them elections? Or did they win elections because they were racist and segregationist?

The deflecting of Democrat partisans is tiresome. It is a failure to recognize and acknowledge the actual history of the organization.

And to what purpose? That the history will be forgotten under the repetition of distortion? Repeat a lie so many times that it become the fact?

Stay on course, kids.
Votes don't lie.
 
Nope. The only one repeating lies here is you.

C'mon, her209, you are a propagandist. By that I mean that you want to further a "progressive" leftist and partisan agenda and use false equivalency in pursuit of that goal.

Nuttin wrong with that, per se, so long as you admit that you are doing so. Full disclosure and all that.

I myself tend to post against government waste and corruption and in support of a classical liberal agenda. See, full disclosure.

The difference in what each of us is trying to do, to a great extent, is in what we are defending. I am pursuing a principle. You are defending an entity, in this case the Democrat Party.

The problem, as I see it, lies in blind loyalty to partisan institutions. Institutions that have a very checkered past. If you fail to recognize and acknowledge that the Democrat Party has pursued segregation, you are lying.

And lying is a very bad thing, is it not? Kinda tears at the moral fabric.

A short honest history (cribbed from Wiki in the cause of saving some time,) versus what you and your fellow travelers are trying to portray -

By the 1870s the South was heavily Democratic in national and presidential elections, apart from pockets of Republican strength. It was the "Solid South." The social system became increasingly based on Jim Crow, a combination of legal and informal segregation that made blacks second-class citizens with little or no political power anywhere in the South.

In the 1930s, the New Deal under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a realignment occurred. Much of the Democratic Party shifted towards economic intervention but rejected civil rights for blacks. However, white Southern commitments to Jim Crow grew stronger, and were indirectly challenged as two million blacks served in the military during World War II, receiving equal pay in segregated units, and equally entitled to veterans' benefits. The Republican Party, nominating Tom Dewey of New York in 1944 and 1948, supported civil rights legislation that the Southern Democrats in Congress almost unanimously opposed.
 
C'mon, her209, you are a propagandist. By that I mean that you want to further a "progressive" leftist and partisan agenda and use false equivalency in pursuit of that goal.

Nuttin wrong with that, per se, so long as you admit that you are doing so. Full disclosure and all that.

I myself tend to post against government waste and corruption and in support of a classical liberal agenda. See, full disclosure.

The difference in what each of us is trying to do, to a great extent, is in what we are defending. I am pursuing a principle. You are defending an entity, in this case the Democrat Party.

The problem, as I see it, lies in blind loyalty to partisan institutions. Institutions that have a very checkered past. If you fail to recognize and acknowledge that the Democrat Party has pursued segregation, you are lying.

And lying is a very bad thing, is it not? Kinda tears at the moral fabric.

A short honest history (cribbed from Wiki in the cause of saving some time,) versus what you and your fellow travelers are trying to portray -
Again, feel free to explain why 100% of the Republican HR representatives and Senators from "the South" voted against the CRA or 1964.

The votes don't lie.
 
Hmm, the Democrat Party dominated the South didn't they? I mean, there were hardly any Republicans in office in the region, were there?

Kind of disingenuous to smear the Party of Lincoln with the tar brush of the Democrat Party, then dominated by segregationists.

Were the Democrats racist and segregationist because it won them elections? Or did they win elections because they were racist and segregationist?

The deflecting of Democrat partisans is tiresome. It is a failure to recognize and acknowledge the actual history of the organization.

And to what purpose? That the history will be forgotten under the repetition of distortion? Repeat a lie so many times that it become the fact?

Stay on course, kids.

You are not honest. It's been laid out many times here - the non-southern Democrats voted at the highest rates for the civil rights act (which was put up at ALL by the efforts of the Democratic presidents at high price for them politically, leadership not seen from Republicans), followed by non-southern Republicans - it was the South that was the group of racists, regardless of party.

I didn't know it was zero southern Republicans who voted for it until her209's post. It fits.
 
C'mon, her209, you are a propagandist. By that I mean that you want to further a "progressive" leftist and partisan agenda and use false equivalency in pursuit of that goal.

Nuttin wrong with that, per se, so long as you admit that you are doing so. Full disclosure and all that.

I myself tend to post against government waste and corruption and in support of a classical liberal agenda. See, full disclosure.

The difference in what each of us is trying to do, to a great extent, is in what we are defending. I am pursuing a principle. You are defending an entity, in this case the Democrat Party.

The problem, as I see it, lies in blind loyalty to partisan institutions. Institutions that have a very checkered past. If you fail to recognize and acknowledge that the Democrat Party has pursued segregation, you are lying.

And lying is a very bad thing, is it not? Kinda tears at the moral fabric.

A short honest history (cribbed from Wiki in the cause of saving some time,) versus what you and your fellow travelers are trying to portray -

But then you conveniently ignore the fact that the racist southern Democrats slowly became Republicans over the 20-30 years after the CRA of 1964. Leaving the south as it is today, Republican dominated and in areas still overtly racist.

I personally don't think you are lying per say, but being intellectually dishonest (as you always have been) about the truth.

Your "classical liberal" agenda is anything but. You want government control, but only when "your side" is doing the controlling. So take your shtick and can it. We have enough trolls here on both sides without your pseudo-intellectual wall-of-text bullshit.
 
Again, feel free to explain why 100% of the Republican HR representatives and Senators from "the South" voted against the CRA or 1964.

The votes don't lie.

Didn't you read the history I posted? Why don't you crack a reputable history book instead of the "revisionist" texts you rely on?

Sigh, I am heading off for a fun weekend at the beach so I won't linger. Not much use in trying to have a rational discussion with an ideologue and partisan flack anyway.

I see Craig has joined the discussion. I am sure he will be happy to agree with you, even if not many others will.

:awe:
 
But then you conveniently ignore the fact that the racist southern Democrats slowly became Republicans over the 20-30 years after the CRA of 1964. Leaving the south as it is today, Republican dominated and in areas still overtly racist.

I personally don't think you are lying per say, but being intellectually dishonest (as you always have been) about the truth.

Your "classical liberal" agenda is anything but. You want government control, but only when "your side" is doing the controlling. So take your shtick and can it. We have enough trolls here on both sides without your pseudo-intellectual wall-of-text bullshit.

See, even CrackRabbit can see the Democrat Party of that time was solidly segregationist and they absolutely dominated the South.

The tiny number of Repubs that were in the South may have been, too. I think they went by another name, though? RINO was it?

Anyway, I have no idea why you are going off on me and claiming I am in favor of big government (other than national defense) when I am clearly not.

Lest I be called a Republican next, please be assured that I am a proud Independent. That will vote straight line Republican if the currently considered health insurance bills pass.

Oh such trying times, I really wanted to vote Modern Whig this election.

I haven't posted a Wall O' Text in a while. Thanks for reminding me!

The Modern Whig Philosophy
There are three interrelated concepts that form foundation of the Modern Whig philosophy.

I. Principles

The reality is these are critical to the welfare of the country and the Party. These principles bind us as moderates, unify us as Americans, and also serve to exclude extremes.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY - Any action of the government must respect principles of fiscal responsibility and public accountability.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - Develop practical domestic energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources.

STATE'S RESPONSIBILITY - Each state can generally determine its course of action based on local values and unique needs.

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE - When the government is compelled to legislate morality, every citizen should be considered as equal.

EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT - Increase public and private emphasis on math and science to promote American innovation to compete in the global economy.

VETERANS AFFAIRS - Vigilant advocacy relating to the medical, financial, and overall well-being of our military families and veterans.

II. Structural

Structural Principles are the most important to the Party. Our structure is what makes us fundamentally different, non-ideological, non-partisan, and not confined by the political spectrum.

DEVELOP REAL LEADERS - This central tenet of the Party is to help leaders both grow and to exhibit good citizenship through leadership.

SELF DISCOVERY - As a Whig it is important to always be learning and growing. This means it is the Party's responsibility to pull information together and to help members discover for themselves their stance on any social topic.

III. Perceptual

We have become a reactive society. While there is little we can do about the underlying problem, as a Party we must always consider many perspectives, including a long term perspective.

FOCUS ON LONG TERM PROBLEM SOLVING - We have developed into a reactive nation. The only issues being seriously considered are those who make the top of each media hour, however it is important to be talking about and solving issues that are foreseeable before they are major issues.

DETAILED VISION

Fiscal responsibility

The Modern Whig philosophy is to empower the states with the resources to handle their unique affairs. The logic is that people in Alabama should not always have to flip the bill for earmarks that occur in New York and vice versa. For example, a senator from Oklahoma is currently using his committee powers to stifle an important transportation project in Virginia. The reality is that the more local one gets, the more in tune with the unique and specific needs of that area. This is why we propose that federal tax dollars be provided to each state in a lump sum every fiscal year based on population. This eliminates the need for most earmarks and pork-barrel spending as the onus will then be on state legislators and governors to allocate funding for issues that they see fit. Of course the federal government will still vote on other special projects and traditionally federal items, but these projects will be more manageable to monitor. In addition, the allocations to the states also provides a better opportunity to balance the federal budget while also forcing local voters to pay more attention to state elected officials.

National security

Many of our members have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and have unique and practical qualifications to express the Modern Whig viewpoint. While the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) has been signed between the US and Iraq, experience dictates that the situation on the ground, as well as regional and political issues, will change by the 2011 pullout date. This is why we are sticking with our initial plan as it also helps illustrate our realistic view of the region. We propose pulling our forces out of Iraq except for a relatively small base in the Kurdish area of the country. Our troops will tell you that unlike the rest of Iraq, the Kurds are prone to democracy and in fact do treat American forces as liberators. To this end, the Kurds deserve our continued protection and in turn, we maintain a base to act upon any contingencies emanating from within Iraq, Syria or Iran. Moreover, the oil industry from Kirkuk can take care of the bills. Any future Status of Forces Agreements also should be approved by the US Senate like any other treaty. We then can put real effort and resources into fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Finally, we would continue dialogue and contact with the Pakistani government in hopes that they would finally end this defacto terrorist safe-haven in their country, but in the end, if they fail to act then we will.

Environmental Protection and National Security

Why did we lump the environment with national security? Because eliminating our dependency on foreign oil is a national security issue as it takes away a significant amount of cards from our enemies. For example, cartels are illegal in the US but at the same time, we rely on the OPEC cartel for our oil. Expedited funding and research into viable green technology is part of the answer. It also is a major developing industry where we can make lots of money and create tons of jobs. At the same time, we represent a new generation of "Trustbuster." At the turn of the 20th Century, Teddy Roosevelt broke up the monopolies that stifled small business and economic growth. Now is the time to bust up the oil companies. These companies are designed, as they should be, to make money for their shareholders. We support this. The Modern Whig Party understands that corporations would actually be violating the rules if they strayed from their fiduciary duties toward their shareholders. However, an oil company has no business owning another energy resource such as coal. Believe it or not, clean coal technology exists and if permitted to grow, West Virginia and Southeast Ohio will become the engine of the world. In addition, we support a focus on natural gas, wind and solar power as outlined and paid for in the Picken's Plan.

Immigration

The Modern Whig Party understands the dual responsibility of securing our borders while also dealing realistically with those illegal immigrants already in the country. Many of our members are with the National Guard and have indicated a willingness to operate on our borders so long as a clearly defined mission is developed.

If somebody is in this country illegally, then he or she should be deported if caught. However, it is not realistic in terms of manpower and resources to attempt to hunt illegal immigrants down. We propose the following: Offer illegal immigrants the opportunity for citizenship if they join the military and serve out their initial contractual term honorably. This system already is in use for green card holders and has proven to be an absolute success. In fact, much of this proposal is based off of the highly applauded current framework. The illegal immigrants will not be entitled to jobs that require security clearances, but will be eligible for the GI Bill, Tricare and all other benefits afforded to US service members who serve honorably. This program also will include a background check and English-language classes if necessary. In this manner, any illegal immigrant ranging in age from 18 to 42 will receive job skills and educational benefits while they earn their citizenship in defense of our country. Of course this military path to citizenship would not apply to elderly or disabled illegal immigrants, but it does offer an opportunity to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants.

In respect to the orderly deportation of other illegal immigrants, we propose the following: A creation of ad-hoc immigration courts. Essentially, highly regarded immigration lawyers in varying parts of the country will be nominated and selected to serve as immigration judges. When a suspected illegal immigrant is caught, an ad-hoc court can quickly be convened in order to ensure fair proceedings. In this manner, we can significantly impact the current problem of immigration court backlog while at the same time empower local communities such as Prince William County in Virginia that wish to enforce immigration laws.

China, Foreign Aid and the WTO

Many defective products are manufactured in China, from contaminated pet food and toothpaste to dangerous toys to lead-filled dental crowns. Yet as consumers, we look the other way just to keep costs down, even though these products are made in an authoritarian, oftentimes menacing nation that opposes us at virtually every opportunity.

The Modern Whig Party proposes offering tiered subsidies and tax breaks to U.S. corporations who remove their manufacturing operations from China. The WTO and international treaty justification is based on well-established health and welfare exemptions of rules that normally forbid this type of government intervention. We can then steer our corporations to creating jobs in other places such as the West Bank, Iraq and Latin America. We can then cut direct foreign aid to some of these nations as that system is notorious for corruption anyway. Instead, the people in these poverty-stricken nations will have stable jobs. In the case of Latin America, steering manufacturing jobs out of China and into our hemisphere also may help curb the tide of immigration. Since this is a tiered system, we also suggest that the highest tier of tax breaks and subsidies go to manufacturing jobs in the US.

Church/State Separation

While our members range from deeply religious to completely secular, we are realistic. We follow the rule that the government must not fund religious activities. However, the business of forcing Christmas trees and reindeer ornaments off of city hall property is ridiculous. At the same time, government cannot favor one religion over others. So long as all other religions have equal access to display their holiday symbols, we see no problems.

Gay Rights

Each state can determine the extended rights of homosexuals based on their own local values. We do, however, support classifying as a federal hate crime attacks on people based on their perceived sexual orientation. In essence, the sexual orientation of the guy down the street has no bearing on anybody else's life.

Health Care

The Modern Whig Party is continuing to work with experts in the field to develop a realistic, common-sense proposal for this issue. However, there are a few individual health care items that we are prepared to propose. Recognizing that Viagra is sometimes prescribed to men for other medical reasons such as diabetes and covered by many health plans regardless of the reason, we find it unacceptable that birth control is typically not covered for women. Birth control medication has many other benefits to women besides its primary function.

Second Amendment

We support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Our general viewpoint is that states can regulate firearms to whatever their local values dictate, but these regulations must be reasonable and can't be too costly or otherwise prohibitive to a point where it would violate the constitutional right.

Abortion

Our members are split on this subject just like the rest of the country. But the bottom line is that this one particular issue should not be the sole basis for which political party people affiliate with. For example, many "pro-choice" voters find themselves agreeing with many traditionally GOP issues while many of those opposed to abortion rights find themselves agreeing with many Democratic issues. Despite this fact, voters too often are pushed to choose one party or the other due to the abortion issue alone. It is time to end the trend of having this one issue become a deal breaker. Each state can determine its course of action like any other public health issue that revolves around medical procedures. The federal government should not get involved or regulate such items as the less involvement by the government in our private lives the better.

In addition, we encourage states to consider additional funding for greater access to adoption for people wishing not to keep a child and for qualified couples or individuals wishing to become parents of adopted children. Responsible safe-haven laws also give people an additional option beyond abortion. We support all policies giving couples additional options beyond abortion, making this practice even more rare.

Affirmative Action

Race-based affirmative action should be eliminated and replaced with an economic criteria for education benefits.

Science and Technology

Exploration is in our blood. Whether it is the brain, the oceans, the wilderness or space, people have always been fascinated by the unknown. Perhaps more importantly, science has a way of bringing people together in a manner that no politician could ever dream. Science also has a way of transforming the economy. The Modern Whig Party supports NASA, NOAA and proposes an increased focus on supplementing such efforts with the privatization of space and continued exploration of our oceans. Tasking such public agencies with bold missions while at the same time taking away the government monopoly and allowing capitalism into the exploration business will exponentially expand our technology base and further the growth of mankind.
 
Last edited:
Didn't you read the history I posted? Why don't you crack a reputable history book instead of the "revisionist" texts you rely on?

Sigh, I am heading off for a fun weekend at the beach so I won't linger. Not much use in trying to have a rational discussion with an ideologue and partisan flack anyway.

I see Craig has joined the discussion. I am sure he will be happy to agree with you, even if not many others will.

:awe:
Another post and run.
 
See, even CrackRabbit can see the Democrat Party of that time was solidly segregationist and they absolutely dominated the South.

The tiny number of Repubs that were in the South may have been, too. I think they went by another name, though? RINO was it?

Anyway, I have no idea why you are going off on me and claiming I am in favor of big government (other than national defense) when I am clearly not.

Lest I be called a Republican next, please be assured that I am a proud Independent. That will vote straight line Republican if the currently considered health insurance bills pass.

Ahh you are like the opposite of a RINO, A Republican in everything but name....:awe:
 
But then you conveniently ignore the fact that the racist southern Democrats slowly became Republicans over the 20-30 years after the CRA of 1964. Leaving the south as it is today, Republican dominated and in areas still overtly racist.

I personally don't think you are lying per say, but being intellectually dishonest (as you always have been) about the truth.

Your "classical liberal" agenda is anything but. You want government control, but only when "your side" is doing the controlling. So take your shtick and can it. We have enough trolls here on both sides without your pseudo-intellectual wall-of-text bullshit.
Some did convert, but many others like Jessie Helms and Robert KKK Byrd remained Democrats. Evidently as long as government discriminates against someone they're happy.
 
See, even CrackRabbit can see the Democrat Party of that time was solidly segregationist and they absolutely dominated the South.

The tiny number of Repubs that were in the South may have been, too. I think they went by another name, though? RINO was it?
I guess those Dems in the North were DINO's according to you.
 
Back
Top