Democrats in history - Let's take a look.

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats.

Kind of says it all doesn't it?

That sure sounds bad.. until you look at the actual numbers.

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 Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

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

Overwhelming opposition came from southern states.. Surprise surprise.. Who were those Southern (Dixie)Democrats?

 

[Karen Kraft]

Has no bearing whatsoever on the subject at hand. but..

MLK Sr. was definitely a Republican.
However, according to the Martin Luther King Research and Education Institute at Stanford University no record of Martin Luther King jr.'s political affiliation exists. He was non-partisan in his quest for civil equality. Martin Luther King never endorsed anyone for president; he was committed to challenging injustice.

The closest King came to an endorsement was his lack of such for 1964 GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Goldwater, as a senator, failed to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So no, I don't believe that MLK jr. was a Republican. Prove it.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

 

[PannieMonster]

That sure sounds bad.. until you look at the actual numbers.

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 Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

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

Overwhelming opposition came from southern states.. Surprise surprise.. Who were those Southern (Dixie)Democrats?

Is the Democrat Party one party or not?

 

[Wok]

I was curious about David Duke then looked him up. He was a Democrat, then went Republican then to a populist independent. Whatever the hell that means.

Whatever the affiliation, one cannot fix stupid.

 

[KingOrfeo]

58,000 dead was a bit too much to just turn our backs on and walk away from . . .

Ah, yes, the fallacy of the sunk opportunity cost.

I recall one of the Middle Eastern folk tales of the Mullah Nasrudin:

Walking along a road in India, Nasrudin grew very hungry. He came across a man sitting under a tree selling small, green fruits out of a basket. Nasrudin handed the man a few coins -- and the man handed over the whole basket; such fruits being very cheap and usually bought in small amounts.

Nasrudin walked along, found a tree to sit under, and began to eat. He soon noticed his throat was burning and his eyes tearing.

Another traveler -- from Persia, like Nasrudin -- rounded the bend and saw what Nasrudin was doing. "Fool!" he cried. "Do you not know the chillies of India?! They are for making curry! You don't eat them whole! Stop and drink some water or you'll be dead by sundown!"

Nasruding kept on eating the fruits, eyes tearing, and making involuntary moans of pain.

The traveler repeated, "Stop, fool! Stop eating the fruit!"

"I am not eating the fruit any more!" Nasrudin choked out. "I am eating my money!"

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Is the Democrat Party one party or not?

At the time, no it wasn't. You haven't been paying attention. Detention for you.

 

[Wok]

At the time, no it wasn't. You haven't been paying attention. Detention for you.

Was there a Democratic-Republican party at one time?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Was there a Democratic-Republican party at one time?

Why yes, yes there was..

The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison somewhere around 1792. They stood opposite the Federalist Party.

edit: In opposition to rather..

 

[PannieMonster]

At the time, no it wasn't. You haven't been paying attention. Detention for you.

Oh trust me, I was paying attention and I was around at that time. It just goes to show you, you can't categorize racism into a political party.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Was there a Democratic-Republican party at one time?

Yeah, sort of, but not in any era we are discussing now.

It's a long story from long ago -- and neither relevant nor interesting.

... unless you are a history buff.

 

[Wok]

Yeah, sort of, but not in any era we are discussing now.

It's a long story from long ago -- and neither relevant nor interesting.

... unless you are a history buff.

I am reading about it now, and yes, find it interesting.

 

[PannieMonster]

For what it's worth:

July 14, 2005

COMMENTARY: Charleston Pravda – er, Gazette – Rewriting History Again

by Charles Bolen

Charleston, WV (Special to HNN) – On Wednesday, July 13, 2005, the Charleston Gazette weighed in on the Sandra Day O'Connor vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, and their take was predictable. However, they tried to slide by a piece of revisionist history in their latest piece:

"More dramatically, former Chief Justice Earl Warren was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower – then transformed America with profound rulings long sought by Democrats, such as abolition of school segregation."

The Gazette is rewriting history. Their editorial board hinted that Democrats had long sought to end segregation, implying that it must have been Republicans supported this evil practice.

They further implied that it was "dramatic" that Ike nominated Justice Earl Warren, who would end segregation.

In fact, it was to be expected that ANY Republican president would appoint someone who opposed race–based government discrimination. After all, the Republican Party was founded to END SLAVERY!!!

George Wallace, a Democrat Governor from Alabama, vowed "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" in his own inaugural speech in 1964.

Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Robert Byrd, William Fulbright, Fritz Hollings, Albert Gore (Sr.), and many other Democrats all stood in defense of segregation, while it was Republicans fought to end it for decades. It was the Democrats who fought to the bitter end to defend segregation, mainly by Senator Byrd's beloved filibuster procedure.

Thanks to heroic Republicans like Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois and Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California, a vote finally occurred on June 10, 1964 on federal legislation to end segregation.

Yes, Presidents Kennedy and Johnson helped push the bill, but not without strong Republican support from Congress.

The two Democratic presidents could not count on their own party's Senators and Representatives to pass civil rights legislation. Republicans did the heavy lifting in Congress.

When Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, over 80 percent of House Republicans supported it, while only 61 percent of House Democrats voted for it.

On the Senate side, 21 of the 27 members who voted against the historic act were Democrats.

To imply that ending segregation was a "Democrat" objective is political spin at its worst.

The Gazette faults the Republican Party for not supporting unconstitutional laws granting special privilege and benefits for citizens on the basis of skin color, ethnicity, or national origin.

The Gazette wants judicial activists who will strike the phrase "equal protection under the law" out of the constitution. Their sort of activists recently re–interpreted the words "public use" to effectively mean "ANY use", voiding the fifth amendment private property protection of the Constitution.

More importantly, the Gazette wants more Justices like Harry Blackmun, that rationalize "freedom from illegal search and seizure" somehow extends to a "right" to an abortion, which override states' constitutions and the acts of Congress and legislatures.

Throughout recent years, the Gazette has implied that the Republican Party is racist. The truth is that the Grand Old Party has the distinction of historically opposing government–based favoritism – whether the beneficiaries of the favoritism be white or black.

This historic distinction indicates that the Republican Party is the exact opposite of racist, it strives for color–blind government.

It is the Democrats that have always supported race–based preferences, in one form or another. Whether it is slavery in the 1850's, segregation in the 1950's, or racial quotas and reparations in the 21st Century, you can count on the Democrats to ignore citizens' "equal protection under the law".

Once again, readers walk away from reading an editorial in the Charleston Gazette knowing less about an issue than if they read nothing at all.

 

[Ishmael]

Is this true, that democrats are either: 1) "Elites" who feel superior and want to "help" people whom they deem inferior or 2) People who feel they they can't thrive on their own and want someone to take care of them.

Has any of the 'shuck and jive' crowd posted a cogent retort to this post?

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

I was curious about David Duke then looked him up. He was a Democrat, then went Republican then to a populist independent. Whatever the hell that means.

Whatever the affiliation, one cannot fix stupid.

Interesting. AJ followed a similar political trajectory.

You don't suppose......

 

[Pookie]

America is glad.

And Pookie is happy. That's all that really matters.

 

[Saint Peter]

I want to feel Pookie's happiness. I want to feel her titties while I am at it.

 

[Pookie]

Speaking of sad.

"Wah! Someone said something bad about me. So instead of being an adult I'm going to go bump a bunch of their threads with pictures."

SeanH nailed it. You're too fucking stupid to see that you're reaction to that sort of thing just makes it happen more often. If you had half a brain in that vacuous little skull of yours you would laugh it off and ignore it. By pitching a hissy fit you're just giving the accusation legs.

THE ALL CAPS THING REALLY LET EVERYONE KNOW HOW MUCH IT WASN'T TRUE TOO!

Skyler has always reacted like this when called on his fantasy of being a skinny girl. I think it's where the "fat hag" (as opposed to his skinny girl wannabe look) and "faggot" (man pretending to be a girl) insults derive from. When his rape story got called for the bullshit it was years ago when he first arrived, he wailed just like this ... before coming back with a different rape story. It's been like this for years. He's clearly mentally unstable, as he clearly demonstrates in this thread.

 

[Powertone]

Why yes, yes there was..

The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison somewhere around 1792. They stood opposite the Federalist Party.

edit: In opposition to rather..

Hey UD...just wondering...why do you come to Literotica? Do you ever look at the naked women on AmPics ?
Have you ever looked at the Cocksuckers, Pop It In Yank It Out Repeat, Can I give You A Hand or other similar threads found on the GB or do you only frequent political threads?
I mean...gaw-damn man...why come to a porn board to only bitch bitch bitch ?

 

[Pookie]

I want to feel Pookie's happiness. I want to feel her titties while I am at it.

I feel all nipply for some reason. I think I need to turn the a/c off.

 

[Bidin~Time]

Threads like these make the politicians in D.C. orgasmically happy.

 

[RightField]

Skyler has always reacted like this when called on his fantasy of being a skinny girl. I think it's where the "fat hag" (as opposed to his skinny girl wannabe look) and "faggot" (man pretending to be a girl) insults derive from. When his rape story got called for the bullshit it was years ago when he first arrived, he wailed just like this ... before coming back with a different rape story. It's been like this for years. He's clearly mentally unstable, as he clearly demonstrates in this thread.

I almost always avoid any interaction with UD for this very reason. I often picture him sitting at a computer in some institution with bars on the windows on locks on the door while the attendants in the other room say "At least he's quiet while he's focusing on that computer".

 

[Sean]

I almost always avoid any interaction with UD for this very reason. I often picture him sitting at a computer in some institution with bars on the windows on locks on the door while the attendants in the other room say "At least he's quiet while he's focusing on that computer".

Miss the point much?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I almost always avoid any interaction with UD for this very reason. I often picture him sitting at a computer in some institution with bars on the windows on locks on the door while the attendants in the other room say "At least he's quiet while he's focusing on that computer".

I'm sure the fact that Ulaven makes you looks either ignorant or foolish on a regular basis doesn't enter into your equation at all.

 

[RightField]

I picture Rob as a guy with maybe a year or less of college forced to drop out for one reason or another and stuck in some low paying service job like a waiter who longs for the time when someone will recognize him for his talent, but growing more scornful every day because no one does. He's got slightly long hair that is a little ragged, sometimes he skips shaving for a couple days and he's irritated that he's having a difficult time earning enough to even enjoy the least little leisure activities and it bothers him that some people can jet off to the carribbean for a couple days when he worries whether he can afford to put enough gas in the car. He's strongly in the corner of "government control" because he feels that if people of like-mindedness take over the government they'll recognize his long-standing dedication to the cause of the proletariat and that they'll give him a good job, maybe even a management job and he can "get back" at all those people who don't fawn over him now and, in fact, don't even notice he's alive other than to ask him to fetch them another iced tea.

How close am I?

 

[Sean]

I picture Rob as a guy with maybe a year or less of college forced to drop out for one reason or another and stuck in some low paying service job like a waiter who longs for the time when someone will recognize him for his talent, but growing more scornful every day because no one does. He's got slightly long hair that is a little ragged, sometimes he skips shaving for a couple days and he's irritated that he's having a difficult time earning enough to even enjoy the least little leisure activities and it bothers him that some people can jet off to the carribbean for a couple days when he worries whether he can afford to put enough gas in the car. He's strongly in the corner of "government control" because he feels that if people of like-mindedness take over the government they'll recognize his long-standing dedication to the cause of the proletariat and that they'll give him a good job, maybe even a management job and he can "get back" at all those people who don't fawn over him now and, in fact, don't even notice he's alive other than to ask him to fetch them another iced tea.

How close am I?

Pookie was talking about Karen Kraft.