Lucky...

Regressive ones.

The civil rights act of 1964? Is that what you were referring to? That was LBJ and the heavily Dem congress. Yup...that heavily Dem congress that held it in committee hoping it would die...then filibustered it for almost 2 months. The bill that Exalted Cyclops Byrd filibustered against for over 14 hours straight. ALL the Southern Dems in the Senate voted against it. "The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. [...] In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it." Of course, LBJ was quite correct when he said the Dems would lose the south for a generation (being that a generation is a subset of 2 generations). All the bigots became GOP and the GOP took the south for two generations. \ Yes, of COURSE they did, John - they just jumped ship and went over to the side of the aisle that overwhelmingly (82% Senate, 80% House) voted for something they were vehemently opposed to. Bullshit. The Democratic resistance was HEAVILY in the South. This was more geographical than it was partisan, but Kennedy did initiate it, LBJ furthered it and signed it.

Yep, Yellow Dog Dems became self-riteous Republicans.

The civil rights act of 1964? Is that what you were referring to? That was LBJ and the heavily Dem congress. Yup...that heavily Dem congress that held it in committee hoping it would die...then filibustered it for almost 2 months. The bill that Exalted Cyclops Byrd filibustered against for over 14 hours straight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 --> The bill was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963... --> The bill was sent to the House of Representatives, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Emmanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York. After a series of hearings on the bill, Celler's committee greatly strengthened the act, adding provisions to ban racial discrimination in employment, providing greater protection to black voters, eliminating segregation in all publicly owned facilities (not just schools), and strengthening the anti-segregation clauses regarding public facilities such as lunch counters. --> The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Conservative Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely. It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill. --> To prevent the humiliation of the success of the petition, Chairman Smith allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee. --> Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. So because Mansfield wanted to expedite it by bypassing teh judiciary committee, that is what caused the brief fillibuster. It was the expedient attempt that caused the passage, not general resistance. And one Dem neck was a delay in the House, Howard Smith of Virginia, that was quickly dealt with. --> The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states." LUCKY: These are called, "Yellow Dog Democrats" this group of southerners still stuck in the Civil War. Today we call this same dying group of people, "Republicans." See, in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, etc southerners loved welfare and hated big city slickers a blacks. They voted Dem in most cases. After the 1964 Civil Rights Act LBJ was elected, but there weren't any Dems elected until Obama other than Carter or Clinton who were homers. This same group of conservative Yellow Doggers became Republican in the years following the Act. As we see today the south is all red, teh same states that kept Dems in office during the racist 50's, they rebelled by going Republican. --> After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation. LUCKY: If you notice, these are non-southern states that were trying to get this thing thru, so it was less partisan than it was geographical. --> On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure. --> Finally, on June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, referring to the Democratic Party, "We have lost the South for a generation." LUCKY: That's my point, it was more a geographical issue than a partisan issue. Southern necks rebelled by turning Republican and look what we now have: 12T in debt - who really won? Even still it was more supported by Dems in teh south: HOUSE VERSION: - Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) - Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) 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) So with all the southern resistance, ZERO southern Republicans voted for it in the House or Senate, 8 combined House/Senate Desm voted for it. So even at it being more a geographical measure, it was still a Democratic move all the way.

Nothing from Foster and/or the Heritage Foundation can be considered unbiased. Heritage's data claiming to show revenue increases consistently ignore inflation. Ion doesn't understand the process of making a point using raw data to show its effect. Let's just clear teh slate and make this easy for him: ION, SHOW ME A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUTS WERE IMPOSED AND THE RESULT WAS POSITIVE. OR DO THE OPPOSITE, MAJOR FEDERAL TAX INCREASE THAT TURNED DISASTEROUS. Of course there are other considerations and attributes of every economy, but just using raw data is a good start to understanding how it works in the real world, OUTSIDE of those fantasyland agenda-based papers you've posted.

It's still a jumbled pile of shit. WHat you've given me is a bibliography with no excerpt where you make a point. Either you guys lay a Bib and nothing else, or you lay opinions with no ref / bib. MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT, THEN CITE YOUR REFERENCE; YOU NEED BOTH. You have to both make a point and then suppoert it, not just provide some source and have me guess what you point might have been. I realize you don't want to spend the amount of time necessary, so then just pass on by. Also, you would laugh if I posted Moveon, so don't be ridiculous and give me Heritage; it's a blatant joke. Most of what I see form them are hypotheticals IF Obama had done this or IF he hadn't done that. [13] [17] are out, I wouldn't even cite Moveon, don't feed me Heritage gargbage. [14] Looks interesting, make an assertion, possibly post a quote from them and I would love to read it. [15] is a 77-page paper, why don't I just read it all to find your point. As for the authors: - Gregory Mankiw, former Chairman of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, 2003-2005. Economics professor at Harvard. - Matthew Weinzierl is a conservative Chrsitian Harvard Economics Ph.D. [16] There's not even a link. [18] Be interested in this one, make a point. [19] All that is is a link to an article you can buy - you have to be shitting me. Do you understand what it is to make an argument? All you do is post other people's arguments and don't even take an abstract. Idealy it would be your argument, make a claim like tax cuts didn't work under Reagan, post tax receipts as raw data under Reagan vs Clinton or another admin that raised taxes and make your point. But if your going to *steal* someone else's idea, you have to make a point, not declare tehir word god. I can find eons of PhD's who conflict, so expert testimony is bullshit and we all know it, in court, in economics, etc. It's all agenda-driven, so make a point and let's see how it works out, noit some 77-page drivel.

The civil rights act of 1964? Is that what you were referring to? That was LBJ and the heavily Dem congress. And once agin you have no real comment, typical.

The Warren Court was the most rights-oriented era in the last 100 years, probably since Woman suffrage or the Lincoln era. Altho Eisenhower appointed him, he was very liberal. The left is about personal rights. I think you're confusing corporate privilege with personal rights.

You feel compelled to respond, yet say nothing as usual. Your cut-n-paste stated: Take, for example, all the talk of inheriting the worst economy since the 1930s crisis. That came in response to the news that the federal deficit hit $1.4 trillion. When in reality Obama, the WH and most other objective sources were saying how Obama will be inheriting the worst economy since the GD. I posted and you ignored: So why not address what I reply to when you post? You just feel that you must respond, yet what can ya say, that and other things I refuted cannot be refuted as your cut-n-paste was flat wrong. Obama has maintained before he was elected that we are in the worst times since the GD, your paste states: all the talk of inheriting the worst economy since the 1930s crisis. That came in response to the news that the federal deficit hit $1.4 trillion. It's been out there for over a year, do you think all of the world is stupid?

Europe and Aus are such diff places, but have similar govs. Remember, Switzerland and the UK aren't that much diff from elitist US, so not all of W Europe are good. As for neither are better, the social system here is basically nonexistent as compared to Aus and most of the rest of the world. The US is probably teh best place in the world if you have lots of money.

Right, over there you would riot if they did what they do here. How do you get the underclass to buy off on the oppressive laws we have here? It's one thing to get fucked and be pissed, yet another to get fucked and like it / promote it. Unemp comp is a form of socialims over here too, but if you're conservative you justify it by saying you earned it, therefore it's not redistribution (Socialism). And then denouncing Communism as a bad business model vesus US Capitalism What do ya mean, you guys played a big part too. The US was golden then other than the bombings at the end, but most of what the US did was great and I think we got drunk with praise and wanted to keep it up instead of sitting back enjoying our contribution, so we entered proxy wars and other BS that ended up as bullying.

OK, you win the talk show circuit, we win the elections; sounds fair to me

So what do you think when you hear people say America is teh greatest country in the world and that people all over the world want to come here to live?

WOW, he is a maggot. Bush killed a few stupid rules, but his bureaucrats made the regulatory system bigger and more complicated. Government only grows, under both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans talk about deregulation, but they rarely do it. Yea, like rewriting the 1938 FLSA with his Overtime Law, enabling employers to refuse to pay overtime to some workers and if that worker doesn't give the OT, that is cause for termination. Stupid rule. Also I understand the right to an employee representative during discipline was revoked too, what a stupid rule. Guys a maggot, needs to be at FOX.

Then he's home. Because he got knocked up side the head and now he's conservative.

That was Heraldo Rivera, get your quacks straight Once again you FAIL! Try fact checking your opinions! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrX9Ca7LSyQ http://funnyvideosonly.com.smartvideochannel.com/media/playvideo.aspx?f=flash7&cid=B00B44F1543F4FA3913CEE93D65339BF&v=mostviewed There seesm to be some confusion over it, but it appears it may have been Stossel, but there is a lot of bad info out there as to who it was, but ir probably was Stossel. Of course it could have been both: http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/blogs/2009/09/ultimate-mustache-fighter/

I'm pretty surprised he didn't jump ship years ago. His "Gimme a Break" segments have been more and more pro-business for years. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I like him so much. So then you admit he has a definite pro-business (aka anti-labor) bias. I'm glad we agree on this. Pro-business does not equal anti-labor. Yes, businesses welcome labor orgs. Does your Heald College paralegal curriculum include introductory logic courses? Not to mention I have a BS in Justice and was a process server for 9 years and a lot of other experience. Laugh as you will, I'm pissing off the teacher, who is a lawyer and teaches at a local law school as well, by correcting him on some facts. Try to minimize my experience / knowledge, but that exposes your lack of knowledge and insecurities via ad hominem. Just becasue you think businesses love labor orgs, make your case, or ad hominem away.

That was Heraldo Rivera, get your quacks straight

I'm pretty surprised he didn't jump ship years ago. His "Gimme a Break" segments have been more and more pro-business for years. Yeah, that's one of the reasons I like him so much. So then you admit he has a definite pro-business (aka anti-labor) bias. I'm glad we agree on this. Pro-business does not equal anti-labor. Yes, businesses welcome labor orgs.

How much of that income does the government take in taxes? What is your sales tax or GST? What is the standard of living? What is the happiness index? What is the state of the nation? I think the aus win in all cats.

Exactly. It doesn't work within either, but for the very few. Love how people brag it up and we are the biggest debtor nation on earth. We're right at even with the Canadian dollar too, maybe 2 cents up on them.

I have a pair of religious nuts my GF prays to all the time, but at teh same time, not nearly enough.

What is it with you guys and posting highly conservative sources and trying to pass them as moderates? Steve Huntley was the editor for Novak for 18 years, he's Limbaugh. Really? It was never referenced before, say like, all the time and constantly since before he was elected and many speeches throughout? Whitehouse: Mar 8, 2009 - http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/08/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4852289.shtml Forbes: Oct 13, 2008 http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/12/recession-global-economy-oped-cx_nr_1113roubini.html Baltimore Cronicle: November 17, 2008: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/111708Lendman.shtml Reuters: October 7, 2008: http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0749084220081008 "We are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and a lot of you I think are worried about your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts," he said. That was before he was elected. He's maintained, as any intelligent being would, that we are in the worst economic times since the GD. Also, to date, all of his spending has been Great Recession recovery, AKA, fixing your guy's fuck-ups. Both, but the stimulus fixed 2 of the 3 indicators already, but it would never be enough for you unless it took 2 weeks and we made money in the preocess. Whatever your side sees they spin it. If SNL refuses to satire him, they're all liberal and it's a conspiracy. If they satire him they're drawing a real point. Rush, everyone but you watches SNL for fun, you take it as, "Meet the Press." Love how your cite hammers a lib reference, yet you feel free to post and cite a conservative site. Rushypoo, you are not in touch.

You cant just state something as fact without with no information! Seriously, look at the numbers and the facts and stop making dogmatic statements without facts! The reality is under clinton unemployment was at approximately 5% due to reagans term in which he reduced unemployment and reduced inflation(which is insanely high right now) through, among other things, tax cuts! At 5% everyone talked about how great the economy was but they forget that there were several drops in the stock market that were bigger than the great depression. However, clinton did what was right which was what was done in the 1920's when there was a crash bigger than the one in the great depression.......he did nothing! The economy recovered on its own with little actual impact! As soon as bush got in office everyone talked about how bad the economy was because of 5% unemployment not realizing nothing changed. At the end of bush's term he did damage things with bailouts and such. Of course we got more of the same with obama and things have crumbled under his direction! He has the same policies as FDR who actually made the depression great! Look at the UCLA study. Look at the facts! Why is it that places like oklahoma where the taxes are low and there is little government envolvement we have sustained or grown our economy but in states like california or NY or Michigan which have high taxes and policies like what the feds have and are passing they are crumbling? How can you ignore such blatant evidence and abandon the facts for dogmatic statements? Look at the communist contries that control thier economies like ours is attempting to do. Look at the countries that "redistribute the wealth". There economies still don't come close to the wealth of the poor in this country during a recession! We became rich through freedom not communism or marxism which is exactly where the feds are going. They like murders such as Mao and Chavez! Do you not see what is wrong with that? They have abandoned the constitution long ago despite the fact that the constitution is what made this country the great country it was. It was why people from all over the world came here! It was freedom that drew people from everywhere and made us all rich! How can people have a car and TV and not consider themselves rich when they could be walking miles with a bucket to get water like they do in other countries! This is a convoluted pile of shit. If you have an assertion ot respond to, pls do. You have all kinds of numbers as data, but no source. Again, SORT IT OUT BY EACH ASSERTION OR A SMALL GROUP OF ASSERTIONS, IT'S A JUMBLKEFUCK OF A MESS. I REALLY DO WANT TO ADDRESS IT, BUT I CAN'T MAKE SENSE OF IT. OBVIOUSLY IT'S A CUT-N-PASTE, BUT IT DOESN'T ADDRESS ANY POINT OR CITE ITS SOURCE- SORT IT OUT.

Let me preface this post by saying how desperate you are by correcting spelling. I type fast, this is not a legal doc or a term paper, there are going to be a couple as with other people. From a person such as you who used to make many, spell checking doesn't put more merit in your posts, it doesn't replace citing some objective source to support your argument. Not to mention I typed, "indust" as an abreviation for industrial, it wasn't an error. Must suck to not be able to create an argument and be relegated to grammar nazi. No, the world creates a standard by following a trend that is virtually excusive. An aberration is that; not providing universal care is going against a world standard. IOW's, I'm not and you can't muster an argument or even fake it; we all have seen it for a long time. We were not founded on the practice of slavery, antimiscegenation and no women's rights? Was it a hobby then? BTW, for a grammar Nazi I would think you would quote people using standard rules of quoting, but I guess the rules are different for you. Illustrate my citations as biased, hell, you won't even address them. What data did I make up? Come on, Rushy, have you no argument? Expound, CRA did what and when? What did it muchk up? Can you make a complete argument for once?