According to bright young cub reporter Eugene Robinson…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062803119.html
Theorem: Any checkable statement posted by Adaher in thread #676834 can be proven wrong.
Method: Google the statement.
Procedure: Examine all checkable statements in thread #676834.
Result: All checkable statements have been proven wrong.
QED
New Theorem: All checkable statements by Adaher in all threads in the Election forum can be proven wrong.
The result is left as an exercise for the student.
I still find it amusing that you think citing black voting statistics before the 60s actually provides any useful information. Just as useful as black crime statistics in 1830s Alabama.
Out of curiosity, do you think these black voting statistics would be any different were Southern black folks actually allowed to vote?
There’s one thing preventing this, actually.
It’s the Republican party.
Er, what definition of “anti-federalist” are you using? Do you mean Republicans are the anti-federalist party? Because that would be correct, and you do use it correctly in the last sentence. Although I agree that as of the last 5 years or so the Republicans have been very inconsistent on this.
Part of the GOP schizophrenia on the Federalist/Anti-Federalist issue is that the Libertarians are anti-federalist (weak Federal government) while the Tea Party is federalist (strong Federal government) except when it does things they personally don’t like. Admittedly they don’t like Obama, so they’ve been pretty anti-federalist in rhetoric. But they would love to see their views passed as law on the Federal level. The easiest way to tell is to see how strongly they support the Constitution, the Tea Party is very big on it. That’s a Federalist stance. Libertarians are more in line with the old Articles of Confederation. Yes, the opposing viewpoints make for some interesting conflicts in the GOP. Fortunately the Libertarians are mostly just paid lip service unless there’s a Democratic president. And then everyone can agree that the Federal government should have no power.
Sorry, that was Stennis who voted against it.
I’d say the far bigger issue is segregation. Voting for a holiday is minor in comparison.
Besides, there’s other reasons that have nothing to do with racism for not wanting to add another holiday to the calendar.
The red herring aside, considering my post, it’s very relevant. Y’all like to go on about the Southern Strategy and how Blacks don’t vote Republican because Republicans are racist, yet when I point out that Blacks have been voting Democrat long before the Southern Strategy, then that little fact is suddenly irrelevant. How does that work?
You mean none did?
True, but there are actually other issues involved and the Southern Dems continued to be hostile to civil rights. It’s just not true at all that most of them, or even a large minority of them, became Republicans. Only one in the Senate, and his civil rights record immediately changed, and a few here and there in Congress and in the states. Pretty much all the segregationist governors stayed Democrats.
But the real injustice isn’t the smear against the GOP, it’s the fact that Robert Byrd is forgiven when he was still a bigot until the day he died(he thundered that homosexuality was an abomination), and Thurmond is forever tarred because he switched parties. If Thurmond had stayed a Democrat and voted exactly the same way, he’d be remembered just like Byrd.
The Southern Strategy is the same thing. The crime is that the South stopped being reliably Democratic, not that the South was racist.
No, the crime is that the South was, and still is, racist.
Heh, how time flies. Just eight years ago the Southern Strategy was a horrible, racist mistake to Republicans. Then RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman:
Ken Mehlman is the definition of a political opportunist. Fuck that guy.
(He, McCain and Graham can DIAF. Seriously.)
We’re getting side-tracked off topic with these discussions about civil rights votes. Here’s the big picture:
The Democrats have generally been beating the Republicans in presidential elections. So assume the Democrats will continue doing in 2016 what they’ve done in the past.
Do the Republicans have a plan for doing something different in 2016? Or are they going to deny their historical record of defeats and keep doing what hasn’t been working?
|=|233 57()()|=5!
I think that many Republicans know that they need to change their message and methods but they need to start by getting their own officials to stop doing stupid crap like this:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Appalling-email-in-Illinois-spurs-new-GOP-rift-4611987.php
I tend to vote pretty much Democratic…it’s not that I think the Republican party doesn’t have some good ideas and solid candidates but every time something like this hits the news (and it’s not exactly unusual) I just cannot see myself voting for them. This country will really benefit if we’ve got two (or more) quality political parties but the Republicans have some major house-cleaning to do before I (43, white, married, middle class) will consider them seriously.
I’m impressed. This post was your most incoherent yet. And you’ve set a high bar.
My posts are always coherent. You’re just not hip (nor apparently young) enough to understand my post, is all.
Their progress would be lauded if they were still part of the Democratic coalition, just as southern Dems have been almost universally lauded as progressives, so long as they stayed with the party. If they defected, they were basically the devil, even if their civil rights record was superior to those who stayed with the Democrats.
:smack:
Since your numbers are exactly the same as the ones I posted, I’m at a loss to understand the purpose of your latest message. Let me make things simple for you:
89-9 … Overwhelming.
61-39 … Not.
Get it?
ElvisL1ves beat me to it …
… but I’ll say it anyway:
In a proper democracy, government is of all the people. That, as one Republican just admitted, the GOP sees government as serving only its own voters is one reason many of us despise that Party so much.