Re: Illiberal liberalism
Von: Rudy Canoza (rudy-canoza@excite.com) [Profil]
Datum: 25.09.2007 07:49
Message-ID: <13fh8bbiob1te91@corp.supernews.com>
Newsgroup: or.politics alt.politicsaz.politics alt.california
Datum: 25.09.2007 07:49
Message-ID: <13fh8bbiob1te91@corp.supernews.com>
Newsgroup: or.politics alt.politicsaz.politics alt.california
mrmcafee wrote: > > > Robert Miller wrote: >> "mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message >> news:3%XJi.80897$xZ2.5857@newsfe10.phx... >>> >>> Robert Miller wrote: >>>> "Rev. Bob 'Bob' Crispen" <revbob@the.rectory> wrote in message >>>> news:Xns99AD9E823E638revbob@140.99.99.130... >>>>> The kindly Rev. overheard metaluna <no@email.no> saying on Tue 04 >>>>> Sep 2007 05:09:19p: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> MLK will never be spokesman for morality. He was a sex pig. >>>>>>>>>>> What does sex have to do with morality? >>>>>>>>>> xxxx >>>>>>>>>> Best explained by writing Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Jesse >>>>>>>>>> Jackson, Sen. Craig.... >>>>>>>>> Yet more validation that, to a Real Right-Winger, Sex Conquers >>>>>>>>> All. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, so long as you can come up with *some* excuse to let you >>>>>>>>> keep that hate burning (and never, never look at the real >>>>>>>>> reason you hate those people (with the exception of the one you >>>>>>>>> tacked on at the very end)), you're good to go in the local >>>>>>>>> Ditto Room. >>> The hypocrisy evident in this unwarranted >>>>>>>>> attack is classic >>>>>>>> projection. >>>>>>> You haven't had much exposure to Smith29, have you? >>>>>>> >>>>>> I am referring to this purported Reverend's erratic behavior. >>>>> Sorry, Bubba, the question here isn't about supposeldoly "eratic" >>>>> behavior, it's about your suppport for for Republican Party's program >>>>> of racism. >>>>> >>>> How much support did the Civil Rights Act get from Democrats compared >>>> to Republicans? >>> Quite a bit, if we are discussing the 1964 Bill which is the main >>> one. http://tinyurl.com/2x6fcr . You should notice that the only >>> Southern Democratic Senator to support the bill was a Democrat, and >>> the only Southern Republican Senator opposed it. >>> >> Cherry picking your facts? >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 >> Vote totals >> Totals are in "Yes-No" format: >> >> The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%) >> The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%) >> The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%) >> >> By party >> The original House version: >> Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%) >> Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%) >> >> The Senate version: >> Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%) >> Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%) >> >> The Senate version, voted on by the House: >> Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%) >> Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%) >> >> As you can see the Civil Rights Act had greater support by Republicans >> than by Democrats. > > What I see is more Democrats voting for the bill that Republicans. What you see, stupid dull plodding partisan lying shitbag mikee, is a much smaller *percentage* of Democrats voting for the bill than the percentage of Republicans. Robert just kicked your flabby pimply ass, mikee.[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
