If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Little Green Footballs)   Why Rand Paul is probably gonna be fine: 72% of Fox News viewers oppose the Civil Rights Act   (littlegreenfootballs.com) divider line 715
    More: Scary, Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul, gonna, Fox News, GOP, contempt, South Carolina, cookbooks  
•       •       •

16179 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2010 at 5:59 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



715 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-05-25 06:59:34 PM
MikeMc: whidbey - LGF is neither left nor right, it's just Charles Johnson's little powertrip.

Whether Johnson says he poo-poos the GOP or not, they're definitely Fark Independent™ material...
 
2010-05-25 06:59:58 PM
Antimatter: Benjimin_Dover: ne2d: If you believe the results of an online, anonymous, self-selected poll, your a idiot.

Especially when the viewership of FNC is about evenly split between Dumbocrats and Republitards. What does that 72% figure look like then? Put that into perspective of the CRA of 1964 when 18 Dems and 1 Rep fillibustered it. The Dem said "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

the 'Dixiecrats' left the party decade ago, and joined the GOP.


Benjimin_Dover: Antimatter: Benjimin_Dover: ne2d: If you believe the results of an online, anonymous, self-selected poll, your a idiot.

Especially when the viewership of FNC is about evenly split between Dumbocrats and Republitards. What does that 72% figure look like then? Put that into perspective of the CRA of 1964 when 18 Dems and 1 Rep fillibustered it. The Dem said "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

the 'Dixiecrats' left the party decade ago, and joined the GOP.

Which should illustrate to even the most blind on how there is almost no difference between the two.


It illustrates that the two parties switched places on civil rights issues during the "Southern Strategy" of the 60s-70s. And it illustrates that you know jack schitt about US history.
 
2010-05-25 07:00:52 PM
Sgt. Pepper: It illustrates that the two parties switched places on civil rights issues during the "Southern Strategy" of the 60s-70s. And it illustrates that you know jack schitt about US history.

The parties did "switch" on civil rights. Rather, before then civil rights was not a partisan issue. It simply became one afterwards.
 
2010-05-25 07:01:16 PM
bulldg4life: If the free market can fix the problem and there was no need for the CRA, then why didn't the free market fix the problem before 1964? Was the market not free enough?

No, it was just that taxes weren't low enough to encourage businesses to stop being racist.

/or something
 
2010-05-25 07:02:10 PM
Yeah Rand Paul! Now that's CHANGE we can believe in!
 
2010-05-25 07:02:34 PM
aden_nak: Barbigazi: Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think we should worship the sun and moon as powerful gods... and fear them.



/approves


structuralist anthropology is annoying.
 
2010-05-25 07:02:38 PM
Fart_Machine: Benjimin_Dover: Which should illustrate to even the most blind on how there is almost no difference between the two.

If there was no difference then the Dixiecrats would have had no reason to leave the party.


Emboldened the key word for those that maybe are too blind.
 
2010-05-25 07:03:13 PM
cowballs: another poll negated by 4chan

Curious to that as well. While I know there's a lot of knaves watching Fox News, that high number suggests poll interference.
 
2010-05-25 07:05:04 PM
DamnYankees: Sgt. Pepper: It illustrates that the two parties switched places on civil rights issues during the "Southern Strategy" of the 60s-70s. And it illustrates that you know jack schitt about US history.

The parties did "switch" on civil rights. Rather, before then civil rights was not a partisan issue. It simply became one afterwards.


It became a partisan issue once the Dems figured out how to make the minorities a permanent voting block and keep milking it to keep them in power while at the same time not really caring about them.
 
2010-05-25 07:05:30 PM
BravadoGT: Adjective Bird Whiskey: BravadoGT: The government should not be in the business of telling private businesses who they can hire and who they can't. If some bigot wants to hire only whites or only blacks at their store, fine. The court of public opinion will deal with that person and their business. And in today's era of instant-information--that penalty will be swift and harsh.

Sing that shiat until you walk into a store and some black guy looks at you and tells you to get your honky ass out of his business.

If he doesn't want my money, I'm happy to spend it with his competitor. And so will my outraged friends and family, people who I work with, etc.

Bigotry is bad for business. Like they say "Satisfied Customers Tell Three Friends, Angry Customers Tell 3,000"


You must be trolling. No one could possibly believe such a statement that is pseudo-rational and defies all historical fact.
 
2010-05-25 07:05:57 PM
You know what's funny about this? Aren't the conservatives always up in arms about moral relativism? They'll say things are right or they are wrong, and only communists like the ACLU and all the dirty liberals would try to paint things in shades of gray.

So, if morality really is black and white (no pun intended), why would you ever let the court of public opinion decide what's wrong or right? So a business owner discriminates and loses customers and that's what makes it wrong? I suppose if they discriminate and nobody minds then it's okay?

So, conservatives, is racial discrimination right or is it wrong?
 
2010-05-25 07:06:12 PM
whidbey: Why don't you post that in bold text so the mods can make our lives easier?

Ummm....You might just wanna be careful about encouraging the mods to ban admitted trolls, skookum.

(or is that sauce only good on the goose?)
(mmmm.....hypocrisy)
 
2010-05-25 07:07:30 PM
Kitwilly: Lieberals, when did you all stop beating your wives?

I'm not married so I must be beating your wife.
 
2010-05-25 07:07:43 PM
DamnYankees: Barbigazi: Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think we should worship the sun and moon as powerful gods... and fear them.



Approves.


Hail to the sun god boy he's a fun god Ra Ra Ra!
 
2010-05-25 07:07:50 PM
Benjimin_Dover: Fart_Machine: Benjimin_Dover: Which should illustrate to even the most blind on how there is almost no difference between the two.

If there was no difference then the Dixiecrats would have had no reason to leave the party.

Emboldened the key word for those that maybe are too blind.


So it doesn't illustrate your conclusion very well.
 
2010-05-25 07:08:11 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: (mmmm.....hypocrisy)

Still can't tell the difference between satire and downright derpishness, I see, even after I've explained it to you...
 
2010-05-25 07:08:37 PM
God's Hubris: Devil's Playground: You may want to rethink the grammar grammer here a bit.

/pet peave


Get a dictionary, they are quite the useful tool.

grammar |ˈgramər|
noun
the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.
• [usu. with adj. ] a particular analysis of the system and structure of language or of a specific language.
• a book on grammar : my old Latin grammar.
• a set of actual or presumed prescriptive notions about correct use of a language : it was not bad grammar, just dialect.
• the basic elements of an area of knowledge or skill : the grammar of wine.
• Computing a set of rules governing what strings are valid or allowable in a language or text.
 
2010-05-25 07:08:41 PM
SwissArmyGnome: So, conservatives, is racial discrimination right or is it wrong?

It's wrong, but imposing those views on business owners and ruining the free market is far FAR worse
 
2010-05-25 07:08:42 PM
4chan likes to screw with fox news & cnn online polls.

/just sayin
 
2010-05-25 07:08:52 PM
Dumb people are dumb. All you had to say was "Fox News viewers" and most of us could have filled in the blank on our own.
 
2010-05-25 07:10:06 PM
pwhp_67: Barbigazi: Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think we should worship the sun and moon as powerful gods... and fear them.


Three cheers for Barbibazi! Ra! Ra! Ra!


groan. no need to ramses the joke down our throats. It was quite evil of Mu.
 
2010-05-25 07:10:12 PM
Ringtailed79: 4chan likes to screw with fox news & cnn online polls.

/just sayin


Actually, they probably agree with this.

Maybe a handful of folks on /b/ who don't, and they definitely stand out...
 
2010-05-25 07:10:16 PM
Devil's Playground: Get a dictionary, they are quite the useful tool. I've been trolled.
 
2010-05-25 07:11:35 PM
Fart_Machine: Benjimin_Dover: Fart_Machine: Benjimin_Dover: Which should illustrate to even the most blind on how there is almost no difference between the two.

If there was no difference then the Dixiecrats would have had no reason to leave the party.

Emboldened the key word for those that maybe are too blind.

So it doesn't illustrate your conclusion very well.


The Congressional Record does very nicely though.
 
2010-05-25 07:12:16 PM
whidbey: Still can't tell the difference between satire and downright derpishness

Sure I do.

When you do it it's satire.

When others do it it's trolling and they should be banned.

You've explained that perfectly.

(you farking hypocrite)
 
2010-05-25 07:13:13 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: whidbey: Why don't you post that in bold text so the mods can make our lives easier?

Ummm....You might just wanna be careful about encouraging the mods to ban admitted trolls, skookum.

(or is that sauce only good on the goose?)
(mmmm.....hypocrisy)


Whidbey knows skookum? I had NO idea ;)
 
2010-05-25 07:13:13 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: (you farking hypocrite)

Man for a fellow left-leaner you sure have the occasional mean streak, Wick. Smoke a fatty.
 
2010-05-25 07:14:14 PM
whidbey: Ringtailed79: 4chan likes to screw with fox news & cnn online polls.

/just sayin

Actually, they probably agree with this.

Maybe a handful of folks on /b/ who don't, and they definitely stand out...


They are the odd bunch.
 
2010-05-25 07:15:34 PM
What, the img1.fark.net tag didn't pass the literacy test?
 
2010-05-25 07:16:34 PM
whidbey: Man for a fellow left-leaner you sure have the occasional mean streak, Wick.

I don't suffer fools gladly.

Or liars.

Or hypocrites.

You've displayed 2/3 right on these webpages.

"B-b-b-but I was kidding!!! You gotta get a sense of humor!" is pathetic coming from right wing blowhards like Limbaugh and Beck. Do you think it's less pathetic coming from a leftwinger? It's not.
 
2010-05-25 07:16:38 PM
whidbey: with this.

Maybe a handful of folks on /b/ who don't, and they definitely stand out...


Yeah that was my point. 4chan's /b/ is not above writing voting scripts to distort online polls, and racism is a constant topic on that website. I could easily see 1 or more script kiddies getting in on this.

I'm not attempting to derail the thread, there's plenty of racism in the US to go around. I am saying that the results of that poll are not to be trusted, as the internet's infamous gremlins love this crap.
 
2010-05-25 07:16:39 PM
Does anyone have the skookum outing moment to hand?

Regrettably, I missed it.
 
2010-05-25 07:17:08 PM
The Southern Dandy: What, the tag didn't pass the literacy test?

The obvious tag couldn't afford the poll tax.

/Too soon?
 
2010-05-25 07:18:55 PM
RobertBruce: Do what i do when someone else in a wheelchair is biatching about (also unconstitutional) ada requirements: Find an accessible competitor and patronize it. And tell your friends.

If only the blacks knew there place as well as you do...

/snark
 
2010-05-25 07:19:04 PM
DamnYankees: Adjective Bird Whiskey: Is this really what we want to be talking about?

Why wouldn't it be? A likely US Senator opposes the Civil Rights Act. It's kind of a big deal.


Politicians are just mirrors of their constituents. If 72% of Republican voters favored dressing up in a chicken costume, then Republican Senators would all dress like chickens. Politicians are a symptom of the disease -- not its cause.
 
2010-05-25 07:21:32 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: "B-b-b-but I was kidding!!! You gotta get a sense of humor!" is pathetic coming from right wing blowhards like Limbaugh and Beck. Do you think it's less pathetic coming from a leftwinger? It's not.

Yes, because it's exactly the same thing.

Meanwhile, keep demonstrating to the class what a huge bug you have up your ass.
 
2010-05-25 07:21:49 PM
It's called Libertarian. Not Racism. There is no Racism party.
 
2010-05-25 07:21:54 PM
Kitwilly: Lieberals, when did you all stop beating your wives?

You're presupposing that all liberals are male?

/seeing as gay/lesbian marriage is illegal almost everywhere
 
2010-05-25 07:23:22 PM
In the interest of absolute fairness, it's sort of a bait and switch to ask the question the way they did and then extrapolate the conclusion that they're all against the CRA.

Then again, in the interest of absolute fairness, it IS South Carolina.
 
2010-05-25 07:23:53 PM
Ringtailed79: I am saying that the results of that poll are not to be trusted, as the internet's infamous gremlins love this crap.

Believe me, even after your 4Chan disclaimer, the results are not to be trusted.

It's f*cking Faux News, after all...
 
2010-05-25 07:25:20 PM
ima turkey: It's called Libertarian. Not Racism. There is no Racism party.

Libertarians are pretty naive to the fact that a lot of racists support them because they think that libertarians would further their agenda.
 
2010-05-25 07:25:23 PM
In all fairness, there is a rebuttal to this over in the politics tab that I have been too busy to respond to yet, but I feel this may add to the discussion (or completely derail it).

First, one must either believe that laws derive their legitimacy from an objective moral standard, or believe that they derive their legitimacy from something else. If one believes the latter, that means whatever confluence of factors that made the CRA legitimate would necessarily be the same confluence of factors that allowed slavery to become law, and therefore slavery was just as legitimate as the CRA.

If one believes in an objective moral code, it means that there are certain rights that morally each person has, and they do not change over time. If a government votes to infringe on these rights, then it is an immoral act.

Now we must determine what rights we believe each human has. If one believe that people do not have a natural right to property, then it means that one believes taking what others have worked for is morally acceptable. If someone builds a house, it is morally acceptable for another person to take it. In addition, if you believe people have a right to property, but only to a certain extent, than you have two options. There is an objective standard for how much of a person's property is available to be taken, say 10% or something, or that society determines how much of that property can be taken. If the latter, than please go back to the first paragraph. If the former, please let me know how to objectively determine that.

So if you support the CRA, then you either believe slavery was legitimate, stealing is moral, or there is an objective amount of your property that is not yours to withhold.

Please let me know which it is.
 
2010-05-25 07:25:44 PM
whidbey: Ringtailed79: I am saying that the results of that poll are not to be trusted, as the internet's infamous gremlins love this crap.

Believe me, even after your 4Chan disclaimer, the results are not to be trusted.

It's f*cking Faux News, after all...


Point taken.
 
2010-05-25 07:26:30 PM
Holy fark.

Have I fallen into a time warp?

We're debating the CRA and a good portion of Republicans are against it?

So, all this time, they've just been suffering in silence, and now, with this opening, their disgruntlement with it comes out?

I know conservatives are supposed to act as a brake on progressive action, but COME ON!!

According to my calculations, new controversy over women's suffrage and slavery gotta be in the Republican pipeline.
 
2010-05-25 07:27:15 PM
kibitzer788: Please let me know which it is.

If you were posting that in satire, I would give you a truly epic 10/10. But knowing you are serious based on your previous posts...hell, still 10/10.
 
2010-05-25 07:27:16 PM
kibitzer788: So if you support the CRA, then you either believe slavery was legitimate, stealing is moral, or there is an objective amount of your property that is not yours to withhold.

Please let me know which it is.


None of those. CRA was passed because American citizens were being discriminated against on the basis of skin color by other Americans who ignored the 14th Amendment.

You may now continue with your scheduled trolling.
 
2010-05-25 07:27:42 PM
whidbey: Meanwhile, keep demonstrating to the class what a huge bug you have up your ass.

I'll do that, but only if you'll go on biatching about trolls and telling others not to troll and whining to the mods about trolls not being banned fast enough.

Sorry that it bothers you when someone points out that you're a giant flaming bag of hypocrisy.

Asshole.


(what? I was just kidding! Can't ya take a joke, pal? You should lighten up.)
 
2010-05-25 07:27:46 PM
kibitzer788:
So if you support the CRA, then you either believe slavery was legitimate, stealing is moral, or there is an objective amount of your property that is not yours to withhold.


cormacmaher.com

How about, I support the CRA and I don't think that slavery/stealing is moral.
 
2010-05-25 07:28:55 PM
Bill_Wick's_Friend: Asshole.

Put me on ignore, Wick. I'm too far gone in your eyes. I'm a LIBERAL FAILURE making it worse for you.
 
2010-05-25 07:29:04 PM
kibitzer788: In all fairness, there is a rebuttal to this over in the politics tab that I have been too busy to respond to yet, but I feel this may add to the discussion (or completely derail it).

First, one must either believe that laws derive their legitimacy from an objective moral standard, or believe that they derive their legitimacy from something else. If one believes the latter, that means whatever confluence of factors that made the CRA legitimate would necessarily be the same confluence of factors that allowed slavery to become law, and therefore slavery was just as legitimate as the CRA.

If one believes in an objective moral code, it means that there are certain rights that morally each person has, and they do not change over time. If a government votes to infringe on these rights, then it is an immoral act.

Now we must determine what rights we believe each human has. If one believe that people do not have a natural right to property, then it means that one believes taking what others have worked for is morally acceptable. If someone builds a house, it is morally acceptable for another person to take it. In addition, if you believe people have a right to property, but only to a certain extent, than you have two options. There is an objective standard for how much of a person's property is available to be taken, say 10% or something, or that society determines how much of that property can be taken. If the latter, than please go back to the first paragraph. If the former, please let me know how to objectively determine that.

So if you support the CRA, then you either believe slavery was legitimate, stealing is moral, or there is an objective amount of your property that is not yours to withhold.

Please let me know which it is.


Please stick that argument back up your ass. You post it in every thread. Get some new material.
 
Displayed 50 of 715 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report