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

[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.

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.

[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...

[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 " 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 quan y 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 quan y 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 mul asking 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 mul asking and had better things to think about and she was being sarcastic but you didn't get it.

either way, you assume alot.

, that is the government in general. minority or not, you can move up the ranks fast in spite of your mediocrity, and , 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]

, that is the government in general. minority or not, you can move up the ranks fast in spite of your mediocrity, and , 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.