29 Jan 12
1 edit
FMF kind of said this already, but judging an idea based on the person or people that hold it is just plain daft. It's really a form of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Ideas need to be judged on their merit and whether and even assuming this study is valid, the title of this thread is a classic example of confusing correlation with causation.
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by whodeyCreating and attacking straw men in debates, as you so often do, isn't a conservative v liberal thing. People all along the political spectrum, and all parts of the public domain, use it as a technique to manipulate discussions.
I blame my low IQ level for being a racist conservative. You must forgive me for not being part of the enlightened Obama master race. :'(
Originally posted by utherpendragonActually, we all use straw men from time to time. All of us. But I don't think I use them all that often. Nothing like whodey, for example, who often uses whole groups of them, changing the one he is referring to from post to post, abandoning them without notice, introducing new ones. I think when I was more active on this forum I was a robust but generally fair debater who perhaps spent a little bit too much time cuffing the relative weaklings like whodey and yourself around the rhetorical chops and leaving you listing - often silently - in the water, or turning you into feetless chickens [as you were already headless when you laid yourself down on my chopping board]. But using straw men [or other logical fallacies] was never a big feature of my armoury. Maybe you see it differently. Fair enough.
you would know !
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199163
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by whodeyWell, according to the article, it isn't because they're racist. It's because they're dumb.
I guess this explains why all Republicans and conservatives are racists. They just can't stand that a black man made it into the White House and now they wish to kick him out just because he is black.
Disgusting!!
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199163
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76It's true. Hitler passed laws against jaywalking. Does that make jaywalking laws inherently fascist?
FMF kind of said this already, but judging an idea based on the person or people that hold it is just plain daft. It's really a form of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Ideas need to be judged on their merit and whether and even assuming this study is valid, the title of this thread is a classic example of confusing correlation with causation.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199163
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonYou think dogwhistling politics is conjured up from nothing? Former conservative Kevin Phillips says otherwise about the "southern strategy" he and others cooked up to help Nixon win in 1968, which was basically to play on white racism to draw white southern voters to the GOP. And it worked.
Thank you for your intelligent and oh so eloquent response. I especially loved the part about "coded attacks". 🙄
Seeing that you like answering for terrier jack how about listing the GOP racist that I asked for.
But like left activists learned to talk about imperialism without using the word imperialism, there are plenty of substitute words for "nigger." You can talk quotas, "reverse racism," or you can plaster the airwaves with a scary black face of someone released by a governor on furlough. And you can't be called on it because after all, what did you say that was racist? His face was used because he committed a crime, not because he was a scary looking black guy.
I fault the left as well for PC obsession with terms. When racism is defined by terminology, then you can pretty much advance any racist concept as long as you don't use the wrong words.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by TerrierJackLbJ proposed the '64 civil rights act, but similar legislation was defeated in the years just prior by solid Democratic opposition, and the '64 bill got greater support from Republicans than among Democrats.
The Republican Party is for all intents and purposes a Southern regional Party. The Party began life in the 1850's as a Midwest Liberal Party. Why the change? Well, I'm someone who was there when the change occurred and I can tell you. When I grew up there was only one Party in the South and that was the Democratic Party (my Parents told me, "I don't car ...[text shortened]... ow. Every day Lincoln spins in his grave and LBJ and Harry Truman sleep soundly.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199163
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by normbenignI've heard this claim, but nobody has ever sourced me. Do you have a link?
LbJ proposed the '64 civil rights act, but similar legislation was defeated in the years just prior by solid Democratic opposition, and the '64 bill got greater support from Republicans than among Democrats.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28916
30 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI sometimes wonder how you breathe. Did you understand what I said? I never said there was anything wrong with Eisenhower and I never approved of Byrd's filibuster. Republicans were a solid support for that act in '64 (and none of those politicians would be allowed in the room at a modern Republican convention because at least half of them were solidly Liberal.)
LbJ proposed the '64 civil rights act, but similar legislation was defeated in the years just prior by solid Democratic opposition, and the '64 bill got greater support from Republicans than among Democrats.
Please name one Liberal Republican now.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199163
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by normbenignOkay, see, Wikipedia says otherwise. Now, I know Wikipedia can be questionable, but I keep hearing this urban legend about the majority of CRA votes coming from Republicans. It's become gospel. Only, I don't think it's true.
LbJ proposed the '64 civil rights act, but similar legislation was defeated in the years just prior by solid Democratic opposition, and the '64 bill got greater support from Republicans than among Democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act
The two numbers in each line of this list refer to the number of representatives voting in favor and against the act, respectively.
Senate: 77–19
Democrats: 47–17 (73%-27😵
Republicans: 30–2 (94%-6😵
House: 333–85
Democrats: 221–61 (78%-22😵
Republicans: 112–24 (82%-18😵
Conference Report:
Senate: 79–18
Democrats: 49–17 (four Southern Democrats voted in favor: Albert Gore, Sr., Ross Bass, George Smathers and Ralph Yarborough).
Republicans: 30–1 (the lone nay was Strom Thurmond; John Tower who did not vote was paired as a nay vote with Eugene McCarthy who would have voted in favor.)
House: 328–74
Democrats: 217–54
Republicans: 111–20
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199163
Oops. Sorry. That was the Voting Rights Act. Here are the Wiki numbers for the Civil Rights Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%–31😵.
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%–29😵.
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%–27😵.
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%–30😵.
[edit] By party
The original House version:[13]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39😵
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20😵
Cloture in the Senate:[14]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34😵
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18😵
The Senate version:[13]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31😵
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18😵
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[13]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37😵
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20😵