Slashdot Mirror

A larger *percentage* of Republicans voted for it, however, a larger number of Democrats voted for it.
The reason for this, is as I noted, in 1964, the racists were still Democrats. Almost *all* Republicans were in the Northern States.

Civil Rights Act of 1964:
House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34

Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6

I misspoke when I said, "took a stand against".
The more accurate telling would be,
After the Northern Democrats (the Majority of Democratic, and all electoral representation) led the charge on the Civil Rights Act after a decade of Republicans balking at it, the Southern Democratic voters began to jump ship to the Republican party. At this point, the Republican party slowly began to realize the electoral clout that gained them and started taking stands against Civil Rights to win over that base.
https://library.cqpress.com/cq...
The Civil Rights Act of 1966 was defeated due to Republicans siding with the Southern Democrats.
The parties follow their constituencies. The divide is really north/south, not Republican/Democrat.
The Southern voters have always been racist. They were when they voted Democrat, and they were when they moved to voting Republican.
For the time-frames where the majority of Republican congressional representation was Northern Republicans, the Republicans supported Civil Rights.
You'll note that the 4 main states worth of electoral votes that Barry Goldwater took in 1964 were the deep south.
At this time, Dixiecrats still existed, so it still behooved the racists down in Dixie to vote democratic in congressional representation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Again- the divide in political beliefs with regard to race and civil rights isn't blue or red- it's north or south.
The South votes Republican today. Do the math.

Perhaps someone older than me remembers this, for all who believe their guy is "innocent" In the 1977s a bill was crafted in such a way that if a lawmaker voted against it, the Congress still got their far above average "cost of living" raise for "serving" in Congress, meanwhile told the masses back home "I voted against that huge raise..." of course the bill was "defeated" soundly and Congress got their raise. http://library.cqpress.com/cqa... As an aside, look at your own guy/gal, there's a good chance they were serving then, that was about 37 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Well, since it's so bad for scrappy startups and favors entrenched interests, I can only assume that Google is lobbying feverishly against this, given their preferences for openness, transparency, and eliminating bogus patents, unlike all those other big players who just abuse the patent system to secure their own business models?

With 1.2 MILLION DOLLARS spent on lobbying in Q1 of 2011 (source), Google must surely take this issue very seriously. Of course, they take buying bogus patents and perpetuating the existing system 2,616 times MORE seriously than lobbying for reform, as evidenced by their 3.14 Billion bid for a bunch of "bogus" patents, which they assured us they would ONLY use for self-defense, completely unlike all those other companies who are just big meany-head bullies.

Google: "Do No Evil. But if you MUST do evil, be sure to spend a little time and money to make it appear like you're not doing any evil, because those dumb rubes won't know the difference anyway."

http://www.cqpress.com/docs/City%204%20-%20Most%20Dangerous_14E.pdf

Comparing different nations, and ethnically different people is interesting. Try the link above. American cities are listed by crime rate. Washington, D.C. stands near the top of the list, as does Baltimore, MD, and several California cities. Browse them, and compare their murder rates to their gun control laws. The most restrictive cities in the nation are on that list. California is interesting, because they have gone so far as to take down billboards and advertisements that depict firearms, but they still manage to lead the nation in violent crime. Since all of these cities are US cities, it's fair to compare them.

Tokyo? I don't mean to sound ethnocentric, but they are very different than anyone outside of Asia. Like most Asians, they are taught from the cradle that honor is more important than anything else in life. In America, we are taught that rights are the important thing. You can't honestly compare their violent crime rates to ours.

Comparing European crime rates to US crime rates seems reasonable, as our culture is based on theirs. Same goes for Canada and Australia.

Just because most of the current SCOTUS justices were put on the bench by Republican administrations doesn't imply that the court is conservative (it is not nearly as conservative as this metric would suggest). All it means is that Republican administrations are not very good at nominating justices that do what the administration thinks they will do. Souter and Stevens (and perhaps O'Connor) fall in this category. The Democratic administrations on the other hand are batting 100% - think Ginsburg and Breyer. (BTW, here's an interesting page showing how the various pairs of justices voted in the 2002 term).

[the justices] DO try to make decisions that are good for the health of the country

But, that is not their job. They have two main jobs - one (which many people people forget) is to decide non-constitutional issues (such as how to interpret Federal laws where they conflict or are unclear) and constitutional issues. In neither case should they care "what is good for the health of the country" (that job is for the other two branches of the Federal government). Even if following the Constitution results in a horrible outcome for society, they should follow the Constitution (hopefully, in their opinions, they would point out that the other branches could get off their butts and fix the law in question).

What defines pornography as pornography?

To be smut it must be ut-terly without redeeming social importance...

Data on members of the U.S. Congress and their districts. Contains in-depth profiles of every member as well as data on their constituencies, apportionment, and redistricting. Data starts with 106th Congress.

terrorism def= peacetime equivalent of a war crime.

you think calling things like anti-competitive behaviour and government lobbying terrorism makes you broad-minded, but in fact, it merely makes you unable to stick to any reasonable definition of terrorism.