Quote :

"yes, let's pull out shit from 130 years ago to taint the Democratic Party of today. Seriously, the only thing the Republicans have to hang their hat on, in terms of race, is Lincoln freeing the slaves. Have y'all done anything in the past 140+ years in terms of that? Didn't think so. "

Yes, we have tried to make race LESS of an issue, instead of trying to "further the progression of minorities". As a conservative, I am more concerned with INDIVIDUALS, whether that includes individual rights, self responsibility, ect. While liberals are much more concerned with GROUPING people: gay rights, black rights, illegal immigrant rights, ect.

9/5/2008 4:26:22 PM

well, it makes sense. When you group people together, you can fight for votes by appealing to a group of people at a time, instead of actually promoting what is best for the country. Hey, blacks, more spinnas!!! hey mexicans, more tacos!!! Hey womens, more penis!!! Hey fags, more penis!!! it is selling out at its finest, really.

9/5/2008 4:28:37 PM

since apparently the democrats are adversely helping gay people, please explain how republicans are helping them

9/5/2008 4:36:28 PM

why do republicans need to help gay people as opposed to anyone else? Why should a politician pay attention to one group of people at the expense of another?

9/5/2008 4:39:36 PM

what group would be at expense (politically) should republicans drop their same sex marriage position?

9/5/2008 4:41:36 PM

aaronburro's reasoning skills are not up to snuff

9/5/2008 4:47:56 PM

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 4:54 PM. Reason : oops, missed that part of the thread. civil rights act has already been tackled. ]

9/5/2008 4:49:56 PM

^^ nice ad hominem. thanks for really adding to the discussion at hand.

and, as for gay marriage. That is hardly what I was aiming at when I was asking why any politician should help one group as opposed to any other group

9/5/2008 4:54:33 PM

^^ the Civil Rights act passage had more to do with region than party. from the same article:

Quote :

"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%) * Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) * Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) * Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) "

it's pretty obvious here that southerns voted against, and non-southerners voted for. Then inside each region, democrats were more heavily in favor of it than republicans

9/5/2008 4:57:46 PM

man, if only he hadn't edited his shit away before you posted that. oh. he did.

9/5/2008 5:02:28 PM

Seems to me that in the one-party southern states, any Republican who stood a chance would take on the majority opinion of the area. In other words I'm not saying Republicans were shiny and perfect, just that historically they aren't necessarily the party of racism over the Democrats.

9/5/2008 5:03:44 PM

^^ sorry, i guess I should keep the thread open in another window and continuously refresh it right before I click Reply

9/5/2008 5:07:05 PM

if only there were a window below the post window that had that shit in it

9/5/2008 5:10:52 PM