In The News

[Cvalda]

HAHAHA please, please, I beg you Cvalda, bring up 'white privilege.' Please. I need both a good laugh and to refresh my foundation of sanity today.

Please Rage, enlighten us how the fascist libs have oppressed you and destroyed the fabric of society.

And I think you forgot to mention 'by Democrats' as well. Or do you prefer to only remember half of history?

So what you're implying is that the Democratic party is actually as bad or worse than Republicans on civil rights issues?

[RagingDragon]

Please Rage, enlighten us how the fascist libs have oppressed you and destroyed the fabric of society.

So what you're implying is that the Democratic party is actually as bad or worse than Republicans on civil rights issues?

[DoomRulz]

Oh boy Doom.

Well, the obvious things to say are that no one should be allowed to have a job that they do not physically meet the requirements for, man, woman, both, neither, etc. If you look at it logically, it has nothing to do with gender, outside of the fact that male and female bodies are different. All women aren't Vasquez, and don't want to be, but the ones that do should have that opportunity if they can meet the requirements.

If there is a minimum standard for being able to perform a difficult job, it should have to be met regardless. I mean everyone knows lives are literally on the line. But if standards can be modified to accommodate female averages, without endangering fellow soldiers or the overall mission, then of course it's worth the military taking a look at it.

I think the Marines delayed their pull-up requirement because 55% of women couldn't pass it. This is a hilarious reality that a lot of the 'military gender equality' folks will soon realize the hard way. Men and women are physically different. Big surprise we all learned in the first grade.

It's kind of like the hilarious reality the pro-choice people will learn, once we become China and start running over children without giving two shits.

Thanks for your input. I agree with you.

[Rong]

RD's FW

[Cvalda]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/12598327f1c9969f249498a98d353917/tumblr_mphsheO5Au1r5pl3ao1_500.gif

So you've got nothing

[RagingDragon]

On civil rights? Hell yes. They're just as slimy as Republicans, mainly in the fact that they make the disadvantaged believe they support him/her until they have their vote, then they do whatever they want with the resulting power. Just like they rushed in a million immigrants and immediately legalized them to get their votes before they were shipped to war. Just like they want to legalize every immigrant in America today to, guess what, immediately get their votes on issues they may or may not have any clue about.

In 1957 Eisenhower sent 1,000 US Army paratroopers to allow 9 African-American students to enter an all-white school. He was, gasp, a Republican.

Too bad out of the 99 politicians that signed the 'Southern Manifesto' that opposed racial integration of public places, 97 of them were Democrats.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I can go all day. The Democratic party is far, far more rotten than the stupid Repubs can ever be.

Thats partially due to the fact that they claim to be so many things. It's deceptive, and vile, and they take advantage of people that don't know any better. The 'underprivileged' as it were.

And no, I have so much crap people wouldnt want to read it all, but there's always time for a good joke.

[Rong]

What your citing is wrong with democrats is generally known as politics, that's both sides

[Cvalda]

On civil rights? Hell yes. They're just as slimy as Republicans, mainly in the fact that they make the disadvantaged believe they support him/her until they have their vote, then they do whatever they want with the resulting power. Just like they rushed in a million immigrants and immediately legalized them to get their votes before they were shipped to war. Just like they want to legalize every immigrant in America today to, guess what, immediately get their votes on issues they may or may not have any clue about.

In 1957 Eisenhower sent 1,000 US Army paratroopers to allow 9 African-American students to enter an all-white school. He was, gasp, a Republican.

Too bad out of the 99 politicians that signed the 'Southern Manifesto' that opposed racial integration of public places, 97 of them were Democrats.

Your political ignorance is showing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
Southern Democrats were conservatives just like you

[RagingDragon]

Every single segregationist in the US senate was a Democrat, except for Strom Thurmond. And no, they weren't 'southern Democrats.' They were 'Democrats.'

How about your glorious civil rights champion Lyndon B. Johnson and his famous saying:

"I'll have those n***ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

[Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]

This is after gutting the very similar 1957 civil rights act as a senator. Don't believe me? Look it up.

Dems have been taking advantage of minorities and the oppressed for their own political power for decades. It's obvious. I don't need to write a thesis on it, because if you're smart enough to ask questions, the answers are all there.

It's the information age, kids. Inform yourselves. Don't just watch CNN and parrot what you hear.

And Alex Jones doesn't exactly apply. That isn't some baseless conspiracy. It's an obvious fact.

[Cvalda]

Every single segregationist in the US senate was a Democrat, except for Strom Thurmond. And no, they weren't 'southern Democrats.' They were 'Democrats.'

Link to back that up?  Actually Strom Thurmond was a (southern) Democrat. And if you wanna break down the passage of the Civil Rights Amendment, it's helpful to look at the demographics by region:

The original House version (for/against):

    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 (for/against):

    Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
    Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
    Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
    Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

Northern Democrats outvoted Republicans on both fronts, and what of the conservative Southern Democrats?

The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a significant event in converting the Deep South to the Republican Party; in that year most Senatorial Republicans supported the Act (most of the opposition came from Southern Democrats), but the Republican Party nominated for the Presidency Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who had opposed it. From the end of the Civil War to 1960 Democrats had solid control over the southern states in presidential elections, hence the term "Solid South" to describe the states' Democratic preference. After the passage of this Act, however, their willingness to support Republicans on a presidential level increased demonstrably.

So all the conservative Democrats who hated black people switched to the Republican side? Shocker

How about your glorious civil rights champion Lyndon B. Johnson and his famous saying:

"I'll have those n***ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Shouldn't you be jerking off over his beautiful rebuke to political correctness like a good libertarian? He was a piece of shit, sure. He still signed the bill into law though.

It's the information age, kids. Inform yourselves. Don't just watch CNN and parrot what you hear.

So why are all your facts a bunch of second hand bullshit?

[RagingDragon]

  Attacking facts does not make them false.

And talking about second-hand bullshit is more funny given the Wikipedia references being thrown around. I didn't think this thread would be sourced according to APA standards. Let me get out my highlighter.

Can you please point out where anything I said was 'second hand bullshit' other than the convenient placement of the word 'southern' in front of Democrat to somehow vindicate them of any wrong doing?

I'm a 'northern' Republican, btw. We think differently up here in the mountains.

For clarity to readers, what we're talking about is much better understood through 'Conservative vs. Liberal' ideas, rather than blanket Repub. Democrat, which can cause a lot of confusion.

[Cvalda]

Congrats on not actually responding to any of the actual facts I presented, and then resorting to the losers argument of "LOL Wikipedia!!!"

[whiterabbit]

The shit has hit the fan I see, well might as well throw some more dung.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/us/transgender-lawsuit-crossfit/

What you guys and gals think about this? I see a man trying to be a women but regardless of how much she may try, she is still genetically a man and should not be allowed to compete with women. Perhaps a new transgender bracket?

[RagingDragon]

You didn't answer my question either, and you're the one that brought up 'second hand bullshit.' You started it.

But your facts were referencing the breakdown of votes on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yep, sure enough more 'northern' Democrats supported the bill. The vast majority of Republicans also supported the bill, though this somehow is ignored in favor of 'Republicans hate civil rights' outlook.

I'm not claiming that Republicans have been champions of civil rights. They've had their moments where the party has done great things, but they're f**ked up plenty. What I am claiming is that the romantic view that the Democrats are the party of equality for all people, and sticking up for the little guy, is just as big a load of bull as the first claim. They're in it for power, under the illusion that they're great, wonderful, truly progressive individuals. They used it, and took advantage of many minorities and disenfranchised groups, for their own ends. At least the Republicans were honest about their ideas.

That's been one of the Democrats biggest and most effective tools since Carter, who was a born again Christian.

I, as a Republican, bear the marks of past mistakes with shame, but they do not, DO NOT, define the Republican party, any more than eco-terrorism or Socialism define the Dem party.

Hold on this whiterabbit link is interest...

[Cvalda]

The shit has hit the fan I see, well might as well throw some more dung.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/us/transgender-lawsuit-crossfit/

What you guys and gals think about this? I see a man trying to be a women but regardless of how much she may try, she is still genetically a man and should not be allowed to compete with women. Perhaps a new transgender bracket?

She's got no real major advantage over biological women in strength competitions because all those bitches are on steroids anyway. And as the article states she has fully transitioned, which means her body no longer regulates hormones like a male. Muscle mass is regulated by testosterone. The only advatage physically she would have is bone density.

What I really think this news article is is another shitty story for bigots to start clutching their pearls over.