abolishing slavery destroyed private property, too

sweetmelissa31: If we had just waited a little longer, the free market would have done its thing.

economies loooove to get rid of free labor

If you want civil rights, vote Obama. He promises he wont be as bad this next time.

torch: And let us not forget, let us not forget, dude, that the original Civil Rights Act was written by the Republicans and voted down by the Democrats.

Let us also not forget that after Johnson (a Democrat) signed the Civil Rights Act, most of the racist Southern Democrats became Republican, where they've remained since, all because of Johnson signing the CRA.

But let's not turn this into a Dems vs. GOP thing. Let's just all agree that what was important was that the Civil Rights Act passed. Not who passed it. That and Ron Paul is a loon for being against it.

I can't think of a better example of a case where "more government" was necessary and good than something like the Civil Rights Act.

coco ebert: Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation, he believes it is the government, not the people, that causes racial tensions by passing overreaching laws that institutionalize slavery and segregation. Today's race problems, he said, result from the war on drugs, the flawed U.S. court system and the military.

Um, wut?

Ron Paul can't imagine that black voters would care about something other than cocaine.

MBK: Look, white people: You had over 200 years to get your shiat together, you didn't do it. So big brother Federal Government had to step in and do it for you.

You tried, you failed, get over it.

We didn't? I'm pretty sure that there's an entire age of civilization dedicated to White people ruling the entire goddamned world. Y'know, colonialism and shiat.

And the civil rights act was as much about protecting white people form immigrant populations as the other way around, there was a lot of shiat going both ways and it was only a matter of time before we went from rioty to civil-warry.

There is not one first world society in existence that subscribes to the ideals of "Libertarianism". Not one.

I can, however, point to a myriad of third world shiatholes that have essentially put the Ron Paul plan into practice.

fark the "Libertarians". Theyre unsophisticated cretins who think they're being edgy and clever by not identifying with the GOP outright.

torch: And let us not forget, let us not forget, dude, that the original Civil Rights Act was written by the Republicans and voted down by the Democrats. Something tells me the Democratic version that passed a couple of years later had different language in it.

Let us also not forget that the one that passed had much more support among the Republicans than it did among the Democrats, something around the order of 20% more support at that. And before some idiot*, and there will be one, brings up the BS "southern Democrats who became Republicans" talking points. There was, to the best of my knowledge, exactly ONE democrat that voted against the CRA that went on to become a Republican, the rest of the them remained Democrats for the remainder of their service,

The reality is that the Right supported the Civil Rights Act much more than the Left did. Trying to pretend otherwise is simply an effort to revise history.

_______________________________________________________


In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]


**shivashakti: most of the racist Southern Democrats became Republican, where they've remained since, all because of Johnson signing the CRA.

Ooops....too late, the idiot beat me in. And no, that isn't what happened, actually, recent studies have shown that the Southern Democrats pretty much stayed Democrat, and why wouldn't they? Why would they leave the party that was more AGAINST the CRA to go to the party that more supported it? The shift in the south was due to the demographics of liberal notherners moving south (real liberals, not "democrat" liberals) and changing the overall demographics. There is no evidence that most racist southern Democrats did anything other than remain Democrat. Otherwise, where were all the Democrat politicians shifting parties to stay with their supporters?

The Dixiecrat Myth (new window)

torch: And let us not forget, let us not forget, dude, that the original Civil Rights Act was written by the Republicans and voted down by the Democrats. Something tells me the Democratic version that passed a couple of years later had different language in it.

If you honestly think that a 1960s Dixiecrat was the same thing as a modern Democrat, then consider yourself lucky that I'm even taking the time to respond to your idiocy.

I've heard this bullshiat argument before from right-wingers and it's completely disingenuous. Stennis? Smathers? You think these guys were liberals for farks sake?

and there goes this flavor of the month may I suggest John Huntsman next?

Tingle007: and there goes this flavor of the month may I suggest John Huntsman next?

Sarah Palin will jump in come spring.

In the meantime, sure why not Huntsman?

Vote for a Republican, get a Republican.

Vote for Obama, get a half-black Republican.

FubarBDilligaf: Ooops....too late, the idiot beat me in. And no, that isn't what happened, actually, recent studies have shown that the Southern Democrats pretty much stayed Democrat, and why wouldn't they? Why would they leave the party that was more AGAINST the CRA to go to the party that more supported it? The shift in the south was due to the demographics of liberal notherners moving south (real liberals, not "democrat" liberals) and changing the overall demographics. There is no evidence that most racist southern Democrats did anything other than remain Democrat. Otherwise, where were all the Democrat politicians shifting parties to stay with their supporters?

The Dixiecrat Myth (new window)


I didn't say it happened immediately. It happened gradually. It was definitely not complete. You had some people like Robert Byrd who stayed with the Democrats. But then there were people like racist Strom Thurmond who defected to the Republicans in 1964, after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. (to support Barry Goldwater who also opposed the CRA).

Also, the Dixiecrats (led by Strom Thurmond) were themselves a breakaway part of racist Southern Democrats from the 40s. That's not what we're talking about here.

From Wikipedia's entry on Southern Democrats:

After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression. Rising educational levels and rising prosperity in the South, combined with shifts to the left by the national Democratic Party on a variety of socio-economic issues, led to widespread abandonment of the Democratic Party by white voters and Republican dominance in many Southern states by the 1990s and 2000s.

When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal. However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control gradually collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. Southern Democrats of today who vote for the Democratic ticket are mostly urban liberals. Rural residents tend to vote for the Republican ticket, although there are a sizable number of conservative Democrats.

GAT_00: ultraholland: abolishing slavery destroyed private property, too

So did abolishing Feudalism. The GOP is trying to bring that back, so is the GOP actually trying to get slavery back too? We know they don't like the guy in the WH.

Why is it when people assume slavery, they assume only blacks will be slaves?

blackheart666: Vote for a Republican, get a Republican.

Vote for Obama, get a half-black Republican.

Vote for a liberal or a progressive, get a lecture on how voting third-party is a wasted vote.

/PICK. ANOTHER. NAME.

You know what is the single most racist policy being enforced in America today?

The "war on drugs".

How many politicians running for President support that racist piece of garbage?

This sort of weird, bastardized Libertarianism is like Communism. Workable ideas in theory, terrible in practice. They are pipe dreams that are based on people acting both rationally and in the interest of the greater good at all times.

I can't take Ron Paul seriously. The dude has lived in Kentucky and Texas, and so he has to know that there is no way discriminatory businesses outside of the major cities (and even probably some of the businesses inside the major cities) would be boycotted and put out of business by the general public. If you live in a place like that for even a short while, you realize that the irrationality of racism gets in the way of the rationality of making money and seeing increased business.

FubarBDilligaf: The reality is that the Right supported the Civil Rights Act much more than the Left did. Trying to pretend otherwise is simply an effort to revise history.

Holy shiat dude. Revising history whilst desperately claiming that your opponents are trying to revise history? I really hope you're trolling.

The GOP in the early 60's was not right-wing as we currently understand the term, and the Democrats were not left-wing as we currently understand the term. Conflating the two so you can claim right-wingers fought for the CRA is goddamn Orwellian-level revisionism, nearly as bad as claiming that the Nazis were atheist socialists (which, incidentally, I've actually seen people seriously claim on Fark before).

Smelly McUgly: This sort of weird, bastardized Libertarianism is like Communism. Workable ideas in theory, terrible in practice.

Except libertarianism doesn't work in theory.

Communism fails because it has premises that simply aren't true. i.e., being overly optimistic on human nature.

Libertarianism fails because it has premises that are mutually exclusive. For instance, the people advocating a gold standard keep alternating between the premise that gold is scarce (and therefore valuable) and not scarce (and therefore accessible). It's impossible for both things to be true at the same time.

muck4doo: If you want civil rights, vote Obama. He promises he wont be as bad this next time.

Our choices are either turd sandwich or radioactive anthrax sandwich...

Can you imagine where we'd be at this point of a McCain presidency? In the worst case scenario, he dies from the stress and President Lipsticked Fungible Molecules sees Putin rearing his head and presses the nuclear launch button.

And the current crop, dear sweet Lordie Lord, where to even begin? Ron "say one smart thing then 3 insane things" Paul. Mitt "I want to start a war with Iran, too!" Romney. Herman "I don't know China has nukes" Cain. Michelle "I'm completely batshiat insane" Bachmann. Newt "fascism is cool when I do it" Gingrich? And I forgot the 3rd guy.

As far as his attitude towards civil liberties goes, Obama blows chunks, there's no doubt about it. I don't think "treason" is entirely too strong a word to describe signing the NDAA as passed by the traitor majority in Congress ("oh, but I won't use those provisions, I totally promise"). But what exactly is the short-term alternative? Name any Bill-Of-Rights-Desecrating law signed by Obama that the Republicans didn't fervently support. If you think Obama's attitude towards whistleblowers sucks (and it does, shame on you, Mr. Most Transparent Administration Ever), there were Republicans openly calling for Assange to be assassinated after the big Wikileaks dump.

In short, nothing that's an improvement on Obama is going to come from today's GOP. It's a shame that Obama's done poorly enough that my "defense" of him is reduced to this (I genuinely had fairly high hopes originally, but suffice it to say that he's proven far more adept at at limbo than the high jump) but so it is.

schrodinger: Libertarianism fails because it has premises that are mutually exclusive

Like: "The best way to maximize freedom is to implement economic policies that will ensure 95% of the populace lives as serfs!"

Or: "The only way to limit the corrupting influence corporations have on government is to remove corporate regulations!"

Or even: "We can make our economy more stable by tying it to the value of a certain shiny metal of dubious usefulness and recently-fluctuating price!"

The American revolution destroyed a fair amount of English private property too.

cman: They were indeed socialists, no question about that

Oh fark off.

propasaurus: Of course. If the slaves workers didn't like working on a plantation for shiat pay, they could just quit and go be slaves for a better, kinder master boss. Soon the bad slave owner company would be out of business.

Hey, what you said fits pretty well to life today!

Mister Paul wants to keep the Black people out of the cities and on the plantations where they belong!

ultraholland: abolishing slavery destroyed private property, too

Hey, thats right! I want reparations from the government!

cman: Isnt everything that I listed socialist goals (besides the racial stuff)?

You're claiming that NAZI GERMANY were proponents of social justice and were pro separation of church and state.



You're a troll or an imbicile. Either way you can fark off.