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
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.
Trolls are gonna troll.
That hasn't been the case since the Republican party took a stand against the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s. Certainly true before then, but after that the racists jumped ship and we got The Southern Strategy in Republican electoral politics.
btw, fuck you for talking out of your ass like there's some kind of truth to your poison, Spicer.
And the responder that you responded to was arguing the point that it isn't wasn't the weirdness of people that made them successful, but their initial economic standing.
That's not reductionism, it's a counter point that you're trying to disagree with by attacking its logical validity. I'm not defending reductionism, you're just manipulative as hell.
You dropped "get a product out the door" as if you believed being rich was enough
I was obviously defending the assertion of the guy you responded to. The one where he said...
I don't think it is their wierdness that made them succesful It is that they were BORN rich. They went from being very rich to being super rich. Being born rich is the key qualifier for success.
Get it?
We're talking about getting shit done and being successful. Why are you stuck on "being rich"?
Well.... you were arguing whether being rich was enough... your words. You have a confusing form of logic, buddy.
Sure, Mexico was definitely planning on taking it over again, but they had no force projection at the time and Texas was self-governing.
That's mostly correct. There were a few excursions of the Texans into Mexican territory, which were soundly rebuffed, and a few Mexican excursions into Texas territory that were successful, but they couldn't really maintain an occupation. (San Antonio)
However, the forces Santa Anna was able to rally for the Mexican-American war would have been more than enough to take Austin and every other seat of government in Texas.
I do agree that Texas/Mexico is nothing like Israel/Palestine... I was just pointing out that the independence of Texas was questionable, being unrecognized by most of the world, and unable to rebuff Mexican excursions into their territory.
Being anti-Zionist means you don't support the notion of a national Jewish homeland
Therein lies our disagreement.
I absolutely support the idea of them having their little chunk of land carved up in the UN mandate. I don't support their claim to all the land that they had once conquered and then lost for a couple thousand years.
While we're dabbling in "in generals," Zionism almost always means support for an Israeli homeland... in *all* of what used to be Israel before the Romans had their way with them.
Just hobby- I wasn't trying to imply that I'm a professional... I'm a software engineer, not a digital arts guy.
Beyond that, how many people who are using Gimp because they are too cheap to pay for Photoshop, have $4000+ to spend on one of these laptops?
That's what I meant to reply to...
Now to the point of professionals and software suites, I do have some interesting anecdotes... Where I work, our executive in charge of the graphic designers (an older gentleman) uses Photoshop exclusively, but 2 of our youngest graphic designers use Ubuntu laptops and Gimp. We don't do video, so I can't answer to that.
If you were an apolitical entity betting on who'd become rich, you wouldn't factor in their IQ, or their academic performance.
You'd simply bet on their parents' net worth.
There's enough rich failures to show the opposite.
A perfect example of "Exception that proves the rule"
None of this should be construed as to take away from the ingenuity of the people listed above, but rather, not a single one of them are great thinkers of their time. Trump has gotten a lot of products out the door. In the end, being able to flip real estate purchased with familial wealth is what made him a bazillionaire.
Wellllll, I can easily afford one of these laptops... But ya, I still use Gimp. And OpenOffice.
It's not even a matter of superiority, it's a matter of value. I don't perceive enough value in one of the high-priced market offerings to justify spending the money for me. Sure, I could afford a single-chair Photoshop license... But when Gimp does what I need without having to pay for it... why the hell pay for it? ePenis length?
The analogy isn't a very good one...
Texas is more like the end-game goal of the Zionists.
The history of the Republic of Texas, its independence, it getting its ass kicked, it eventually winning a temporary victory and getting annexed in time to save its ass from Santa Anna doesn't really match what's going on in Israel and Palestine.
The demographic shift in Texas was largely peaceful. Proclaimed independence (over Mexican outlaw of slavery) is when it got violent.
Ehhhhhhhh.
The Republic of Texas was recognized by 5 other sovereign nations. By this metric, the State of Palestine has more legitimacy than the Republic of Texas ever had.
I'd also point out, that while it declared its independence from Mexico, that was not a settled matter until the US annexed it.
I think most historians agree that the Republic of Texas' self-government wasn't going to last much longer unless it appealed to the US for annexation. Santa Anna was coming back, and the numbers simply weren't on Texas' side.
Yes, but so far the evidence shows white people coming out of Africa.
The fuck?
What evidence could possibly show that?
We've now analyzed the decoded migrational human DNA to the point of being able to determine melanocyte density in the epidermis?
Are you making shit up, just an obscene racist trying to rewrite reality to fit your conceptions, or have I somehow missed this massive leap forward in genetic study?
Anti-Zionist is "generally" a cover for being anti-Jewish is a crock of horse shit.
The real anti-semitic people out there are aware that Palestinians are as semitic as Israelis, and they hate them both.
The idea of Jews having a homeland doesn't drive me berserk. The idea of them being given a chunk of land out of the UN mandate, and then expanding beyond it with impunity due to shielding from the US drives me crazy. If any other group did it, we'd call what they do ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation, which is what the rest of the fucking world is calling it, for good reason.
The fact is, Zionism is a shitty ass philosophy. Supporting it should make you feel dirty. You should be pushing for an equitable solution to all of the native parties of the region- meaning Israelis, and the other people living there who have just as much claim to the land.
Many Jews are against Zionism. Don't conflate a lack of support for the actions of the Israeli government with a lack of support for Jewish people. It's either highly ignorant, or highly manipulative. Only you know which.
True.... but irrelevant?
Trying to sweep a radical change under the carpet of average change is some pretty ridiculous logic. I'm certain you agree.
There weren't ice ages until the recent past (2.5MYA) and in the intervening years we've had about 24 periods of global warming and global cooling (ice ages) and numerous mini-ice ages.
I'm not sure if you're serious... You think there weren't ice ages until 2.5MYA? That's patently false....
The interstitial cycles are true... but I'm unsure how they're relevant, for the same reason stated above. No natural interstitial cycle occurs at the rate the current change is progressing at.
CO2 levels were magnitudes higher 50 million years ago.
True....
An era dominated by mammals. Life would flourish at CO2 levels many times the level shouted by alarmists.
Also true....
Not dominated by civilizations with a requirement for grain to survive, though.
Life will indeed thrive, but humanity will be kicked back to tribalism. We won't be able to feed civilization.
I personally find the chicken little aspect of some to be extremely detrimental to accomplishing rational solutions: namely cutting down on fossil fuels (not only for CO2 levels); reducing the production of carcinogenic industrial by-products; and safely disposing of these harmful products.
I personally find your accusation of chicken-little-ism to be entirely ignorant. The good thing about my personally held belief, and yours, is that the vast majority of the world agrees with mine, and as such, yours will perish with time. See ya there. Keep fighting the good fight.
I'm happy you agree there are things that should be done that meet both of our goals, but you're quite simply wrong when it comes to your reasoning of why The Great Hoax of the 20th and 21st centuries, as you seem to believe it is, shouldn't be treated as the existential threat that it is.
Not the concept of climate change, the formalized name for the phenomenon, as a replacement for the disliked "Global Warming".
Why was it so enthusiastically embraced? Because it's accurate. Which was the genius of it. It makes the problem more ambiguous by the nomenclature, and isn't an outright denial.
And also hydro only provides about 6% of US power and 7% comes from all renewable technology
Hydroelectric is renewable, which is why the EIA splits renewables into "Hydroelectric" and "Other renewables."
So 13% of deployed US power is renewable sources, and growing every day, making:
due to the limitations in the technology that keep it from being an option anytime soon
just more bullshit from you. It's an option right now. The infrastructure of the country isn't going to be replaced overnight, but at 13%, that's a pretty significant step, and the growth of the deployed renewable capacity segment is just *slightly* below that of natural gas.
So basically you're stuck with either burning hydrocarbons or nuclear power. Pick wisely.
That's a no-fucking-brainer.
Hydrocarbon power sources are directly causative of more deaths per year than nuclear power has caused in its existence. That just barely doesn't include some poorly placed critical mass fission reactors over a couple of cities in Japan.
https://www.mapi.net/blog/2014...
Bullshit meme is bullshit.
Thanks for playing, though.
And what's worse, is that the US manufacturing output has an upward trend, minus recession dips. So you're worse than full of shit, you were never anywhere close to right.
China outgrew us, because 1357 > 318, and every marginal increase in per-capita production there accounts for a *fucking massive* increase in total output.
We didn't shift our manufacturing to them, they started industrializing.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea...
No, strike that. Always fucking was. Labeling the political movement toward the combat of said phenomenon from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" was invented by Republican Frank Luntz to give Republicans a way to refer to the "controversy" without acknowledging the painfully descriptive label. https://www.theguardian.com/en...
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.
Trolls are gonna troll.
That hasn't been the case since the Republican party took a stand against the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s. Certainly true before then, but after that the racists jumped ship and we got The Southern Strategy in Republican electoral politics.
btw, fuck you for talking out of your ass like there's some kind of truth to your poison, Spicer.
And the responder that you responded to was arguing the point that it isn't wasn't the weirdness of people that made them successful, but their initial economic standing.
That's not reductionism, it's a counter point that you're trying to disagree with by attacking its logical validity. I'm not defending reductionism, you're just manipulative as hell.
You dropped "get a product out the door" as if you believed being rich was enough
I was obviously defending the assertion of the guy you responded to. The one where he said...
I don't think it is their wierdness that made them succesful It is that they were BORN rich. They went from being very rich to being super rich. Being born rich is the key qualifier for success.
Get it?
We're talking about getting shit done and being successful. Why are you stuck on "being rich"?
Well.... you were arguing whether being rich was enough... your words. You have a confusing form of logic, buddy.
Sure, Mexico was definitely planning on taking it over again, but they had no force projection at the time and Texas was self-governing.
That's mostly correct. There were a few excursions of the Texans into Mexican territory, which were soundly rebuffed, and a few Mexican excursions into Texas territory that were successful, but they couldn't really maintain an occupation. (San Antonio)
However, the forces Santa Anna was able to rally for the Mexican-American war would have been more than enough to take Austin and every other seat of government in Texas.
I do agree that Texas/Mexico is nothing like Israel/Palestine... I was just pointing out that the independence of Texas was questionable, being unrecognized by most of the world, and unable to rebuff Mexican excursions into their territory.
Being anti-Zionist means you don't support the notion of a national Jewish homeland
Therein lies our disagreement.
I absolutely support the idea of them having their little chunk of land carved up in the UN mandate. I don't support their claim to all the land that they had once conquered and then lost for a couple thousand years.
While we're dabbling in "in generals," Zionism almost always means support for an Israeli homeland... in *all* of what used to be Israel before the Romans had their way with them.
Beyond that, how many people who are using Gimp because they are too cheap to pay for Photoshop, have $4000+ to spend on one of these laptops?
That's what I meant to reply to...
Now to the point of professionals and software suites, I do have some interesting anecdotes... Where I work, our executive in charge of the graphic designers (an older gentleman) uses Photoshop exclusively, but 2 of our youngest graphic designers use Ubuntu laptops and Gimp. We don't do video, so I can't answer to that.
As a matter of fact, you HAVE to defend your time because the world is full of people with shit ideas who want collaborators.
That... is honestly insightful.
You'd simply bet on their parents' net worth.
There's enough rich failures to show the opposite.
A perfect example of "Exception that proves the rule"
None of this should be construed as to take away from the ingenuity of the people listed above, but rather, not a single one of them are great thinkers of their time. Trump has gotten a lot of products out the door. In the end, being able to flip real estate purchased with familial wealth is what made him a bazillionaire.
paper tampon
You truly are a fuckbag. I can't wait for your generation to die.
I love my number pad....
I can't say that it *seems* to affect my typing speed. I can still pull 130-140wpm
Is this a serious complaint?
Wellllll, I can easily afford one of these laptops... But ya, I still use Gimp. And OpenOffice.
It's not even a matter of superiority, it's a matter of value. I don't perceive enough value in one of the high-priced market offerings to justify spending the money for me. Sure, I could afford a single-chair Photoshop license... But when Gimp does what I need without having to pay for it... why the hell pay for it? ePenis length?
Not saying this is you, because I know nothing of your preferences...
But Apple guys always scoffing at anything more being a waste until apple leapfrogs the competition and now provides more. Then it's revolutionary.
The analogy isn't a very good one...
Texas is more like the end-game goal of the Zionists.
The history of the Republic of Texas, its independence, it getting its ass kicked, it eventually winning a temporary victory and getting annexed in time to save its ass from Santa Anna doesn't really match what's going on in Israel and Palestine.
The demographic shift in Texas was largely peaceful. Proclaimed independence (over Mexican outlaw of slavery) is when it got violent.
The existence??
I hope you mean... the existence of Israel on land granted to the Palestinians in the UN Mandate....
Ehhhhhhhh. The Republic of Texas was recognized by 5 other sovereign nations. By this metric, the State of Palestine has more legitimacy than the Republic of Texas ever had.
I'd also point out, that while it declared its independence from Mexico, that was not a settled matter until the US annexed it.
I think most historians agree that the Republic of Texas' self-government wasn't going to last much longer unless it appealed to the US for annexation. Santa Anna was coming back, and the numbers simply weren't on Texas' side.
Yes, but so far the evidence shows white people coming out of Africa.
The fuck?
What evidence could possibly show that?
We've now analyzed the decoded migrational human DNA to the point of being able to determine melanocyte density in the epidermis?
Are you making shit up, just an obscene racist trying to rewrite reality to fit your conceptions, or have I somehow missed this massive leap forward in genetic study?
Who the fuck modded you interesting?
Anti-Zionist is "generally" a cover for being anti-Jewish is a crock of horse shit.
The real anti-semitic people out there are aware that Palestinians are as semitic as Israelis, and they hate them both.
The idea of Jews having a homeland doesn't drive me berserk. The idea of them being given a chunk of land out of the UN mandate, and then expanding beyond it with impunity due to shielding from the US drives me crazy. If any other group did it, we'd call what they do ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation, which is what the rest of the fucking world is calling it, for good reason.
The fact is, Zionism is a shitty ass philosophy. Supporting it should make you feel dirty. You should be pushing for an equitable solution to all of the native parties of the region- meaning Israelis, and the other people living there who have just as much claim to the land.
Many Jews are against Zionism. Don't conflate a lack of support for the actions of the Israeli government with a lack of support for Jewish people. It's either highly ignorant, or highly manipulative. Only you know which.
The climate has always changed.
True.... but irrelevant?
Trying to sweep a radical change under the carpet of average change is some pretty ridiculous logic. I'm certain you agree.
There weren't ice ages until the recent past (2.5MYA) and in the intervening years we've had about 24 periods of global warming and global cooling (ice ages) and numerous mini-ice ages.
I'm not sure if you're serious... You think there weren't ice ages until 2.5MYA? That's patently false....
The interstitial cycles are true... but I'm unsure how they're relevant, for the same reason stated above. No natural interstitial cycle occurs at the rate the current change is progressing at.
CO2 levels were magnitudes higher 50 million years ago.
True....
An era dominated by mammals. Life would flourish at CO2 levels many times the level shouted by alarmists.
Also true....
Not dominated by civilizations with a requirement for grain to survive, though.
Life will indeed thrive, but humanity will be kicked back to tribalism. We won't be able to feed civilization.
I personally find the chicken little aspect of some to be extremely detrimental to accomplishing rational solutions: namely cutting down on fossil fuels (not only for CO2 levels); reducing the production of carcinogenic industrial by-products; and safely disposing of these harmful products.
I personally find your accusation of chicken-little-ism to be entirely ignorant. The good thing about my personally held belief, and yours, is that the vast majority of the world agrees with mine, and as such, yours will perish with time. See ya there. Keep fighting the good fight.
I'm happy you agree there are things that should be done that meet both of our goals, but you're quite simply wrong when it comes to your reasoning of why The Great Hoax of the 20th and 21st centuries, as you seem to believe it is, shouldn't be treated as the existential threat that it is.
Not the concept of climate change, the formalized name for the phenomenon, as a replacement for the disliked "Global Warming".
Why was it so enthusiastically embraced? Because it's accurate. Which was the genius of it. It makes the problem more ambiguous by the nomenclature, and isn't an outright denial.
And also hydro only provides about 6% of US power and 7% comes from all renewable technology
Hydroelectric is renewable, which is why the EIA splits renewables into "Hydroelectric" and "Other renewables."
So 13% of deployed US power is renewable sources, and growing every day, making:
due to the limitations in the technology that keep it from being an option anytime soon
just more bullshit from you. It's an option right now. The infrastructure of the country isn't going to be replaced overnight, but at 13%, that's a pretty significant step, and the growth of the deployed renewable capacity segment is just *slightly* below that of natural gas.
So basically you're stuck with either burning hydrocarbons or nuclear power. Pick wisely.
That's a no-fucking-brainer.
Hydrocarbon power sources are directly causative of more deaths per year than nuclear power has caused in its existence. That just barely doesn't include some poorly placed critical mass fission reactors over a couple of cities in Japan.
Which is why even through most of US power is made by coal we don't have nation wide air quality issues.
That's 2 lies on one thread. Do you have any fucking relationship with reality?
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
https://www.mapi.net/blog/2014...
Bullshit meme is bullshit.
Thanks for playing, though.
And what's worse, is that the US manufacturing output has an upward trend, minus recession dips. So you're worse than full of shit, you were never anywhere close to right.
China outgrew us, because 1357 > 318, and every marginal increase in per-capita production there accounts for a *fucking massive* increase in total output.
We didn't shift our manufacturing to them, they started industrializing.
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/ea...
No, strike that. Always fucking was. Labeling the political movement toward the combat of said phenomenon from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" was invented by Republican Frank Luntz to give Republicans a way to refer to the "controversy" without acknowledging the painfully descriptive label.
https://www.theguardian.com/en...