History begs to differ on Democratic view of parties tolerance

[Blake]

It has, in the normal course of discussion, occured to EVERYONE here that it's silly to pretend either party gives a about anything other than serving its own special interests at any given time in history, right? RIGHT?!?!?!

I'm gonna say no.

Unfortunate.

[DarrinS]

So you don't know?

I'll believe you if you admit you are completely ignorant in this matter.

I'll admit complete ignorance on legislation tagged "civil rights"-related since 1964. Satisfied?


So, are you gonna post something? Or just keep acting like a ?

[ChumpDumper]

I'll admit complete ignorance on legislation tagged "civil rights"-related since 1964. Satisfied?

No.

That wasn't the question.

[DarrinS]

No.

That wasn't the question.

You gonna post something, or not?

[Blake]

So, are you gonna post something? Or just keep acting like a ?

Are you gonna back up the figures like you offered or ask me if my google is broken again?

ing .

[Winehole23]

Is there anything (be specific) that would indicate to you that they wouldn't?

A lot of conservative southern dems bolted to the GOP. They have not failed to represent the biases of their region or the very real blow back against civil rights jurisprudence in the meantime.

By sheer coincidence, 96% is the same percentage of African-American voters that voted for Obama. I wonder how whites would be viewed if they voted for McCain at such an astonishing rate.

Playing the race card, in a counterfactual scenario. Again.

Don't you ever vary your bs, D?

[ChumpDumper]

You gonna post something, or not?

This is the question you are currently dodging.

Now, could you tell me if anything happened to the makeup of the two parties as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Please explain.

Or just be a and try to run away from it.

[Winehole23]

History begs to differ.

Darrin presumes to speak the verdict of history, but apparently was struck dumb by your request for information about the historical context of his own OP.

[DarrinS]

This is the question you are currently dodging.

I don't know the answer to your question, assshat. That's not dodging.


Now, are you gonna post the answer to your "riddle"?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know the answer to your question, assshat. That's not dodging.

So you are expressing complete ignorance on this issue as well?

Excellent.

Now, are you gonna post the answer to your "riddle"?

The answer to the question is "yes."

You're welcome.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Darrins

It's disingenious to roll a thread like this and promote that the dems were primarily against the 64 Civil Rights act. Why? Because the main opponents in the dem party at the time became republicans soon there after

[DarrinS]

Another disingenuous article.

Why did they stop at 1964?

Please explain, Darrin.

The answer to the question is "yes."

You're welcome.

"Yes" as an answer to the first question doesn't make any sense.

[Winehole23]

^^^In a small clear voice, confesses his ignorance.

[Winehole23]

How refreshing, but oh, what a comedown from the majesty of the headline!

[DarrinS]

Darrins

It's disingenious to roll a thread like this and promote that the dems were primarily against the 64 Civil Rights act. Why? Because the main opponents in the dem party at the time became republicans soon there after

Strom Thurmond and who else? Jesse Helms? Who else?

[ChumpDumper]

"Yes" as an answer to the first question doesn't make any sense.

Because I wasn't answering that question. We were clearly discussing this one:

Now, could you tell me if anything happened to the makeup of the two parties as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Sorry you can't keep up -- but it certainly does explain why you and the author of this little article would want to stop at 1964.

....you could probably figure it out if you Google it....

[DarrinS]

How refreshing, but oh, what a comedown from the majesty of the headline!

When you drink wine, do you keep your pinky extended?

[clambake]

game, set, match

[DarrinS]

Because I wasn't answering that question. We were clearly discussing this one:Sorry you can't keep up -- but it certainly does explain why you and the author of this little article would want to stop at 1964.

....you could probably figure it out if you Google it....

Evidently, two or three Dems switched to GOP.

Robert KKK Byrd stayed true blue.

[Veterinarian]

ChumpDumper just regulating chumps like he's supposed to. DarrinS, consider yourself regulated son.

[Winehole23]

When you drink wine, do you keep your pinky extended?

Nobody drinks wine like that, you jackass.

[ChumpDumper]

Evidently, two or three Dems switched to GOP.

So the south remains a staunch Democrat stronghold to this day. This is your contention and you can back it up, right?

[DarrinS]

Nobody drinks wine like that, (expletive deleted). Do you drink much wine, DarrinS?

Wine is for pompous bags.

For the record, I also don't tie pastel sweaters around my neck.

[clambake]

you can't afford good wine, can you d?

[Blake]

I remember chicks in high school drinking boone's.

I can confirm that they were pompous bags.