If the TEA Party were around in 1964, would they have been against Civil Rights?

[DMX7]

If the TEA Party were around in 1964, would they have been against Civil Rights?

[tim_duncan_fan]

I would pick both, but there is no multiple choice.

[Ignignokt]

Stupid question.

Actually, for a UTSA student, that's creme de la creme.

[Stringer_Bell]

I noticed that both choices were "Yes." Interesting.

[Ignignokt]

I noticed the school the OP attended.

[RandomGuy]

If the TEA Party were around in 1964, would they have been against Civil Rights?

... an "unnecessary intrusion into states rights". Jim Crow laws were all passed by the states.

[DarrinS]

Another "Tea Party are racists" thread? :sleep


Q: You know who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights act for more than 14 hours?


A: This guy


z1pkiOJJdgc

[Oh, Gee!!]

they are in 2010, so I assume they would be in 1964

[George Gervin's Afro]

Another "Tea Party are racists" thread? :sleep


Q: You know who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights act for more than 14 hours?


A: This guy


z1pkiOJJdgc

is that Strom Thurmand? You do realize that he was originally a democrat right? He then , appropriately, moved over to the GOP! Great civil rights record.....:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

They would have been FOR civil rights but AGAINST Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society".

[boutons_deux]

right-wingers, conservatives, Repugs, rurals, bubbas, red-states are generally racist, while there are scattered exceptions to the rule.

("we value the black vote" - dubya at NAACP meeting, not that Repugs value black people)

Atwater/Nixon's Southern Strategy, still alive today, was blatantly racist.

Tea party is dominated by old white men who seem to be unemployed and have time to wave misspelled, racist, slandering placards at tea party astroturf jerkoffs.

[CosmicCowboy]

right-wingers, conservatives, Repugs, rurals, bubbas, red-states are generally racist, while there are scattered exceptions to the rule.

("we value the black vote" - dubya at NAACP meeting, not that Repugs value black people)

Atwater/Nixon's Southern Strategy, still alive today, was blatantly racist.

Tea party is dominated by old white men who seem to be unemployed and have time to wave misspelled, racist, slandering placards at tea party astroturf jerkoffs.

and you are an ignorant, uninformed asshole...

[George Gervin's Afro]

and you are an ignorant, uninformed asshole...

Wow that's wierd..I feel the exact same way about you..go figure

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow that's wierd..I feel the exact same way about you..go figure

Considering you are a pimple on the ass of this messageboard I could care less about your opinion.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Considering you are a pimple on the ass of this messageboard I could care less about your opinion.

poor grandpa..:lmao

[Winehole23]

is that Strom Thurmand? That's Robert Byrd in the pic.

[George Gervin's Afro]

That's Robert Byrd in the pic.

I know but as usual the dead enders fail to present an entire picture.... just soundbites and selective editing..par for the course.

[DarrinS]

I know but as usual the dead enders fail to present an entire picture.... just soundbites and selective editing..par for the course.

The votes of congress are a matter of public record. No need for "selective editing".

[Winehole23]

I know but as usual the dead enders fail to present an entire picture.... just soundbites and selective editing..par for the course.I see. And your handful of one sentence posts completes the picture for us. Thanks.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see. And your handful of one sentence posts completes the picture for us. Thanks.

contributing one line at a time. Not all of us can post 6 straight seperate posts

[Winehole23]

contributing one line at a time. Not all of us can post 6 straight seperate postsTry typing with two hands. :p:

[DMX7]

We know what Rand Paul thinks, lolz.

[Wild Cobra]

Who's the loser that creates such a poll?

[Winehole23]

They would have been FOR civil rights but AGAINST Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society".How genteel. :king

We'll see if "Tea Party" ever gets a chance to prove its bona fides on civil rights and scaling back the welfare state, or whether it becomes a sub-brand of the GOP instead..

[ChumpDumper]

We know what Rand Paul thinks, lolz.True, and it's a view which Barry Goldwater held at the time. It really isn't a stretch to think tea partiers could think the same way given fundamental views regarding private property. The main issue to me is why they would be so angry about being seen to oppose the CRA of 1964 for precisely that fundamental reason.

[Veterinarian]

Who's the loser that creates such a poll?

You don't know how to figure out who the person posting the poll is? Seriously? No wonder you think the Red Army is secretly swarming this country.

[rjv]

How genteel. :king

We'll see if "Tea Party" ever gets a chance to prove its bona fides on civil rights and scaling back the welfare state, or whether it becomes a sub-brand of the GOP instead..

the tea party is already a sub set of the GOP, only it uses the misguided references to the "founding fathers" in some veiled attempt to act patriotic. i seriously doubt most of the madhatters really favor a republic that is for landowners primarily. they just feel the impetus to hate democrats even though both parties are ideologically joined at the hip.

[LnGrrrR]

Since when does the Tea Party care about civil rights? Last time I checked, they're only for less taxes (and maybe less immigrants).

[Winehole23]

Since when does the Tea Party care about civil rights?Ever since CC claimed the "Tea Party" would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though the backlash against federalized diversity can be clearly discerned in its ranks today.

[EmptyMan]

Will the DEMS still be attempting to keep blacks divided and angry 150 years from now for nothing more than political gain?


Yes.


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ZN-a4FyYZxHEtM:http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac151/Jls900/1272069741077.jpg

[Winehole23]

nm

[beachwood]

They would have been for Civil Rights for white people.

[DMX7]

Well so far, 100% of votes are for "Yes".

Surprise, surprise, TEA Baggers... :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Ever since CC claimed the "Tea Party" would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though the backlash against federalized diversity can be clearly discerned in its ranks today.

I honestly don't see that. Maybe a resentment for too much federal control in general but not diversity specifically.

[DMX7]

Since when does the Tea Party care about civil rights? Last time I checked, they're only for less taxes (and maybe less immigrants).

They have a whole slate of issues, not just lowering taxes as their name would imply.

[Winehole23]

I honestly don't see that. Maybe a resentment for too much federal control in general but not diversity specifically.Are the two really separable in the given situation?

[rjv]

Ever since CC claimed the "Tea Party" would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though the backlash against federalized diversity can be clearly discerned in its ranks today.

exactly, the tea party then would have been allied against hubert humphry, and opposed to the civil rights act because it would result in mandated quotas. there was no specific language per se but the act did create the regulatory body that would proceed with quotas.

if CC sees too much federal interference then he would have opposed the act as well.

i am sure so would have the tea party. categorically so, at that.

[panic giraffe]

i didn't see "fuck yes" this poll sucks.

[CosmicCowboy]

exactly, the tea party then would have been allied with hubert humphry, who was strongly opposed to the civil rights act because he thought it mandated quotas. there was no specific language per se but the act did create the regulatory body that would proceed with quotas.

if CC sees too much federal interference then he would have opposed the act as well.

i am sure so would have the tea party. categorically so, at that.

I would have been pro-equal rights but anti-affirmative action and quotas. By definition thats not equal.

[CosmicCowboy]

Are the two really separable in the given situation?

Sure. One can have a moral and ethical agreement with civil rights issues without federal mandates.

[rjv]

I would have been pro-equal rights but anti-affirmative action and quotas. By definition thats not equal.

the question at hand is the civil rights act of 1964 as it was constructed; not a hypothetical variant.

[CosmicCowboy]

I have dealt all my adult career with Federal employees in the civil service hired in the 60's under affirmative action. The US Government basically waived all the conventional civil service standardized testing/scoring to get their minority quotas up and the results were appalling. These people maintained a body temperature of 98.6 year after year and every year their GS rank and pay increased. As their GS rank and pay increased they continued to move up into positions of responsibility and power.

It was crazy. About 5 years ago I had a senior purchasing agent from one of the military bases call me about something they wanted to buy. The quantity they wanted to buy was 8. I told her the price was $10 each. She asked me what the total was...I was like...uhhh...they are $10 apiece and you want 8 of them...She goes...can you figure out the total for me? I'm not very good at math...

I was like WTF??? And this is a person that buys millions of dollars of supplies every year for the government? I could have told her $800 and she would have never bllinked.

[Winehole23]

Sure. One can have a moral and ethical agreement with civil rights issues without federal mandates.Care to give any examples of what you mean? Cause I'm not seeing it.

[CosmicCowboy]

the question at hand is the civil rights act of 1964 as it was constructed; not a hypothetical variant.

Then you should brush up on your history. The 1964 act did not mention quotas. That was due to later legislative and judicial interpretation/action.

[rjv]

Then you should brush up on your history. The 1964 act did not mention quotas. That was due to later legislative and judicial interpretation/action.


and you should brush up on your reading comprehension:


there was no specific language per se but the act did create the regulatory body that would proceed with quotas.

[panic giraffe]

I have dealt all my adult career with Federal employees in the civil service hired in the 60's under affirmative action. The US Government basically waived all the conventional civil service standardized testing/scoring to get their minority quotas up and the results were appalling. These people maintained a body temperature of 98.6 year after year and every year their GS rank and pay increased. As their GS rank and pay increased they continued to move up into positions of responsibility and power.

It was crazy. About 5 years ago I had a senior purchasing agent from one of the military bases call me about something they wanted to buy. The quantity they wanted to buy was 8. I told her the price was $10 each. She asked me what the total was...I was like...uhhh...they are $10 apiece and you want 8 of them...She goes...can you figure out the total for me? I'm not very good at math...

I was like WTF??? And this is a person that buys millions of dollars of supplies every year for the government? I could have told her $800 and she would have never bllinked.

what makes you think this has more to do with AA? maybe just maybe this one lady was just
plain
stupid.

or do you assume that she sounded black and was an AA hire?

or old so you assumed that she just crawled up the ranks?

maybe she was just multitasking and had better things to think about and she was being sarcastic but you didn't get it.

either way, you assume alot.

[rjv]

what makes you think this has more to do with AA? maybe just maybe this one lady was just
plain
stupid.

or do you assume that she sounded black and was an AA hire?

or old so you assumed that she just crawled up the ranks?

maybe she was just multitasking and had better things to think about and she was being sarcastic but you didn't get it.

either way, you assume alot.

hell, that is the government in general. minority or not, you can move up the ranks fast in spite of your mediocrity, and hell, even sometimes, as a result of it.

[rjv]

Then you should brush up on your history. The 1964 act did not mention quotas. That was due to later legislative and judicial interpretation/action.

the act created the EEOC and after the passage of the act this governing body declared that the failure of an employer to have the same percentage of blacks in his workforce as existed in the general population was prima facie proof of racial discrimination under the act. as a result of this regulatory caveat, the only way an employer could prove he wasn't racially discriminating was to practice racially proportional hiring.

[DarrinS]

hell, that is the government in general. minority or not, you can move up the ranks fast in spite of your mediocrity, and hell, even sometimes, as a result of it.


Isn't that where the term "Good enough for government work" comes from?

[rjv]

Isn't that where the term "Good enough for government work" comes from?


could be.

[CosmicCowboy]

the act created the EEOC and after the passage of the act this governing body declared that the failure of an employer to have the same percentage of blacks in his workforce as existed in the general population was prima facie proof of racial discrimination under the act. as a result of this regulatory caveat, the only way an employer could prove he wasn't racially discriminating was to practice racially proportional hiring.

But the EEOC that was originally created didn't have any real power. Under Title VII the EEOC originally only had the power to receive, investigate, and conciliate complaints where it found reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred. Where EEOC was unsuccessful in conciliating the complaints, the statute provided only that individuals could bring private lawsuits, and where EEOC found evidence of "patterns or practices" of discrimination, EEOC could then refer such matters to the Department of Justice for litigation.

All the quotas came with later legislation and Executive over-reach.

[CosmicCowboy]

what makes you think this has more to do with AA? maybe just maybe this one lady was just
plain
stupid.

or do you assume that she sounded black and was an AA hire?

or old so you assumed that she just crawled up the ranks?

maybe she was just multitasking and had better things to think about and she was being sarcastic but you didn't get it.

either way, you assume alot.

She was hispanic and I asked her when she was hired. Nice try. She was just bum-fucking-stupid. She could have NEVER made the test scores that whites had to make during the same time period to get in the civil service.

[rjv]

But the EEOC that was originally created didn't have any real power. Under Title VII the EEOC originally only had the power to receive, investigate, and conciliate complaints where it found reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred. Where EEOC was unsuccessful in conciliating the complaints, the statute provided only that individuals could bring private lawsuits, and where EEOC found evidence of "patterns or practices" of discrimination, EEOC could then refer such matters to the Department of Justice for litigation.

All the quotas came with later legislation and Executive over-reach.


all i am saying is that conservatives more alligned to the tea party ideology are not ardent supporters of the civil rights act of 64.

this is from ron paul, one of the few real conservatives today:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

there are plenty of other conservative intellectuals who have posited the same stance.

[CosmicCowboy]

all i am saying is that conservatives more alligned to the tea party ideology are not ardent supporters of the civil rights act of 64.

this is from ron paul, one of the few real conservatives today:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

there are plenty of other conservative intellectuals who have posited the same stance.

You don't agree with that? You think racial quotas implemented almost 50 years ago created racial harmony and a color blind society?

[DMX7]

there are plenty of other conservative intellectuals who have posited the same stance.

Yeah, and they just won't say it because it's not popular to be against civil rights. We all know it's true though. Ron Paul is just saying what other TEA Baggers believe. He's not the exception, he's just dumb enough to actually say it.

[CosmicCowboy]

Remember the Fireman case That Sonya Sotemayor ruled on that ultimately went to the Supreme Court and was overturned? THAT kind of racial harmony from quotas?

[rjv]

You don't agree with that? You think racial quotas implemented almost 50 years ago created racial harmony and a color blind society?

nice try but this is not about my opinion on quotas. it is about whether many tea party constituents would have been against the civil rigts acts of 1964. i believe paul's message clearly states the belief that many tea party types would have opined back in the 60's. if you do the research you will see that this is the very argument, more or less, that was made against the act even back then.

[spursncowboys]

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

anybody else question the timing of the attacks on the tea party? libs, and especially blacks shouldn't try and dillute the true meaning of someone being racist. Especially over an election season. this is political capital being spent.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, and they just won't say it because it's not popular to be against civil rights. We all know it's true though. Ron Paul is just saying what other TEA Baggers believe. He's not the exception, he's just dumb enough to actually say it.

I'll fucking say it. Racial quotas are fucking wrong. Go to school. Stay out of trouble. Study hard. Be a good solid citizen. Work hard. After that? May the best man win.

By definition quotas aren't color blind. Society should be and could be, but not as long as you have organizations on the left AND right stirring shit up.

[spursncowboys]

I will say it too. reverse racism is still racist and wrong!! too bad liberals can't use common sense and courage.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll fucking say it. Racial quotas are fucking wrong. Go to school. Stay out of trouble. Study hard. Be a good solid citizen. Work hard. After that? May the best man win.

By definition quotas aren't color blind. Society should be and could be, but not as long as you have organizations on the left AND right stirring shit up.

You're not running for Congress though. :) I think that was his point.

[CosmicCowboy]

The implicit message of racial quotas is:

You (pick your minority) are too stupid and lazy to compete with white applicants. We understand that. Don't worry. We know you are stupid and lazy. You don't even have to work as hard. We will take care of you.

Don't forget to vote for us this November!

[DMX7]

You're not running for Congress though. :) I think that was his point.

It was. :lobt:

[ChumpDumper]

How did this discussion become about quotas?

Are you for the 1964 Civil Rights Act or not?

[DMX7]

How did this discussion become about quotas?

Are you for the 1964 Civil Rights Act or not?

He's a TEA Bagger, so of course he's not.

But somewhere down the line, he was raped by quotas. I don't know which quotas, but evidently quotas got him good.

[Wild Cobra]

You don't know how to figure out who the person posting the poll is? Seriously? No wonder you think the Red Army is secretly swarming this country.
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

[DMX7]

100% of voters have voted "Yes", that the TEA Party would have been against Civil Rights if it were around in 1964.

I can't say this is a surprise.

However, it's interesting to learn that apparently some TEA Baggers are against it even now.

[spursncowboys]

DMX, this is about as accurate of a poll as one done by the msm

[Yonivore]

My guess is that they would not.

Robert "Sheets" Byrd (God rest his soul after a pretty stern talking to) was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and I'd say he was about a far from being a Tea Party member as anyone in Congress.

[ChuckD]

they are in 2010, so I assume they would be in 1964

[Winehole23]

Maybe CC and Yonivore get the instinct from the minicons over at NR. Lately, they mostly bow down or make sweet cooing noises wrt Civil Rights (circa 1965) over there, I'm not really sure why. WFB didn't bow down to it, but Jonah Goldberg seems to at times.

[Ignignokt]

100% of voters have voted "Yes", that the TEA Party would have been against Civil Rights if it were around in 1964.

I can't say this is a surprise.

However, it's interesting to learn that apparently some TEA Baggers are against it even now.

Your mom swallows my semen.

[Winehole23]

Legqa2RShzA

[Winehole23]

B_exvKnrK6g