Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (57650)	7/5/2009 10:54:57 AM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I like Eisenhower as a President. I wish the repubs would return more to what the party was in those days. As to McCarthy, I don't he represented any party, only himself and his looniness, that a good deal of the country joined him in for too long.

To: Dan B. who wrote (57650)	7/5/2009 12:32:45 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

You either do not post honestly or you do not know the facts. Most on this thread try their darndest to tell the absolute truth. We are more interested in learning the truth from each other than defending a postion. You should try it! The 1964 civil rights act was supported by liberals and opposed by conservatives. I have posted the vote below. Take the time to Look!!! And after the 1964 civil rights act LBJ said the dems had just lost the south for a generation. Teh south truned to the Republican party EXACTLY because they were soft on integration like affirmative action. Here was the 1964 civil rights act vote. Vote totals Totals are in "Yea-Nay" 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%) [edit] By party The original House version:[9] Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%) Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%) The Senate version:[9] Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9] Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%) [edit] By party and region Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states. The original House version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) The Senate version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor) Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure) [edit] Women's rights The prohibition on sex discrimination was added by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginian Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who had strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act. The addition of "sex" to title VII is commonly described as a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by inserting objectionable amendments.[10][11][12] Smith knew Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944, would vote for the amendment along with southern Democrats and get it in the final bill.[12] Smith thought that northern Democrats would not vote for the bill due to the inclusion of gender, because the clause was opposed by labor unions which the northern Democrats aligned themselves with.[12] Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights...he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights,"[13] and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment.[14] Smith nevertheless claimed that he sincerely supported the amendment and made serious arguments in its favor.[14] The claim was not entirely ungrounded, as Smith had long been close to Alice Paul, a women's rights activist who urged him to include sex as a protected category. The amendment had been forcefully promoted by the National Woman's Party and its allies in Congress, who had no desire to scuttle the Civil Rights Act.[10] Thus, as William Rehnquist explained in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, “The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives...the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on ‘sex.’” [15] However, the idea that banishing sex-based discrimination was ridiculous is undermined by the passage, just one year prior, of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) by the same Congress.[citation needed] The EPA had, as its main objective, abolished wage differentials based on sex. It seemed unlikely that, the following year, the very same Congress would view sex-based discrimination as ridiculous or that any member of that Congress would believe that the addition of sex as a protected class would scuttle the bill.[citation needed] [edit] Desegregation One of the most "damaging" arguments by the bill's opponents was that once passed, the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools.[16] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.[16] Humphrey said "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race."[16] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself," two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.[16] [edit] Political repercussions President Johnson speaks to a television camera at the signing of the Civil Rights Act.The bill divided and engendered a long-term change in the demographics of both parties. President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."[17] Senator Richard Russell, Jr. warned President Johnson that his strong support for the civil rights bill "will not only cost you the South, it will cost you the election."[18] The South indeed started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964. However, political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Schafer have argued that this development was based more on economics than on race. [19] Although majorities in both parties voted for the bill, there were notable exceptions. Republican senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona voted against the bill, remarking, "You can't legislate morality." Goldwater had supported previous attempts to pass Civil Rights legislation in 1957 and 1960. The reason for his opposition to the 1964 bill was Title II, which he viewed as a violation of individual liberty. Most Democrats from the Southern states opposed the bill, including Senators Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), and Robert Byrd (D-WV). [edit] Major features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (The full text of the Act is available online.)

To: Dan B. who wrote (57650)	7/5/2009 12:37:31 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

>>You seem to be implying that Republicans are/were anti civil rights in general, and that southern democrats became republicans over the issue. Hey, a grain of truth in everything, I suppose.>> A grain of truth??? Look again at how the south voted on the 1964 civil rightts act!!! edit] By party and region Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states. The original House version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) The Senate version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor) Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas) Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure) Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)