Restoring Habeas Corpus

[Tolanin]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

WOW! Havelock is now claiming that the Republican Party isn't the party of Southern Racism, but that it's the Democrats instead.

Robert Byrd vs Strom Thurmond is an interesting pair to look at. Robert Byrd denounced his racist past, and Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party to embrace it.

When signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, Lyndon Johnson famously said that he'd be handing over the South to the Republicans for decades. He was right, and Havelock is wrong, as usual.


"Back in the day," Republicans like Strom Thurmond were setting record filibusters (over 24 hours of talking!) to keep racism alive. Havelock, like Strom Thurmond, is on the wrong side of history.

you sure are a tard.

[tad10]

Originally Posted by Cadrid

Regardless, it's still a bill that needs to be passed and I hoped some interest around here would help attain that goal.

Habeas Corpus didn't go anywhere. Why does it need to be restored?

[Gaereth]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

WOW! Havelock is now claiming that the Republican Party isn't the party of Southern Racism, but that it's the Democrats instead.

Robert Byrd vs Strom Thurmond is an interesting pair to look at. Robert Byrd denounced his racist past, and Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party to embrace it.

When signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, Lyndon Johnson famously said that he'd be handing over the South to the Republicans for decades. He was right, and Havelock is wrong, as usual.


"Back in the day," Republicans like Strom Thurmond were setting record filibusters (over 24 hours of talking!) to keep racism alive. Havelock, like Strom Thurmond, is on the wrong side of history.

You're an ignorant boob that needs to pull your head out and learn some history. 80% of republicans supported the civil rights vote while only 60% of democrats supported it.

Civil Right Vote By Party

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

What Johnson meant is that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. The south was OVERWHELMINGLY democrat and by forcing the issue he just lost all the democrats in the south.

Hell....Al Gores daddy was one of the main opponents of the bill...its amazing how his family is such a stanch stanchion of civil rights history now.

God....are people really this ignorant or are they just that stupid??

[tad10]

Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act on grounds it was unconstitutional (something I agree with btw -- the CRA decisions are a crock -- how in the hell does a local BBQ joint have anything to do with interstate commerce) not because he was racist.

As for the racist party...

Democrats are the ones that seem to think blacks, hispanics, etc. still need help in the form of affirmative action to get anywhere in the world. Republicans think everyone is quite capable of making it on their own.

Whatever need affirmative action might have filled in the days where Jim Crow was still very much alive is long over and it now just stinks of paternalism.

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

WOW! Havelock is now claiming that the Republican Party isn't the party of Southern Racism, but that it's the Democrats instead.

Robert Byrd vs Strom Thurmond is an interesting pair to look at. Robert Byrd denounced his racist past, and Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party to embrace it.

When signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, Lyndon Johnson famously said that he'd be handing over the South to the Republicans for decades. He was right, and Havelock is wrong, as usual.


"Back in the day," Republicans like Strom Thurmond were setting record filibusters (over 24 hours of talking!) to keep racism alive. Havelock, like Strom Thurmond, is on the wrong side of history.

Your blind hatred of a party has made you a complete idiot. This post borders on delusional, its as if your hatred has made you fucking insane. When confronted with any type of rational argument, you go into some delusional fucking fit about "the evil republicans".

People like you, on both sides of the fence (Republican assholes too), have made politics, on any level within this country, shit. Its no longer about ideas, philosophies or ideologies, rather its simply who can trash the other party more.

[Taranatar]

Something tells me this bill is hardly about habeas corpus (seeing as it's still in the bill of rights) and more about getting rid of Gitmo. (Hi there, I'm the Constitution and I only apply to citizens of the United States)

[Saediien]

(1) Tarantar: insightful point that only U.S. citizens have constitutional rights on U.S. soil. You should write a law review article about that or something.

(2) The problem with politics in this country isn't "partisanship"--one may as well say the problem with politics is politics. Only rarely are real-life politics about ideas, philosophies or ideologies. Sack up.

(3) Voodoochile78's frothiness and arguments about the 1964 civil rights act aside, are all you guys with your haughty pronouncements about the noble anti-racist Republicans really fooling yourself into thinking that today's Democrats are all closet racists but the GOP is filled with MLK types? That's hopelessly naive, not to mention completely inconsistent with demographic data about black and white voting patterns.

(4) Strom Thurmond may have helped Judge Perry get appointed, but that's exactly where Judge Perry's affinity with the political program of the GOP ends. Perry's appointment and the fact that Thurmond actually allowed black people to work for him (how enlightened!) won't take you very far in proving anything other than that Thurmond was a good politician who remained in office for several decades.

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by Saediien

(2) The problem with politics in this country isn't "partisanship"--one may as well say the problem with politics is politics. Only rarely are real-life politics about ideas, philosophies or ideologies. Sack up.

There is a huge difference between the politics of winning elections, and the politics found in debate. Voodoo isn't out to win any elections last I saw, so i would classify this under debate, in which case, a rational retort should be countered with another rational retort.

However, this isn't the way it is in most cases anymore, even in places where "ivory tower" politics should dominate (College campuses). Instead, it is this angst filled rhetoric that contains very little rationality. A reasonable response to Havelock’s argument is not difficult to come up with, as you said, the Republicans are far from clean on civil rights, instead of doing so, though, it’s “omg evil republicans!”

I expect rhetoric from politicians, from people who debate, I expect discourse. However, in this country, even when I attend seminars anymore, I just don’t find it.

[Gaereth]

Originally Posted by Saediien

(3) Voodoochile78's frothiness and arguments about the 1964 civil rights act aside, are all you guys with your haughty pronouncements about the noble anti-racist Republicans really fooling yourself into thinking that today's Democrats are all closet racists but the GOP is filled with MLK types? That's hopelessly naive, not to mention completely inconsistent with demographic data about black and white voting patterns.

I don't believe thats the point. His point was that southern republicans from the past were the horrible anti-civil rights folks when in fact the worst offenders were democrats at the time. No...very few of them were MLK but that wasn't the point either. Voodoo uses his preconceptions now and applies them to a past that isn't at all what he thinks it is and hence he needs to learn a little history....thats the point.

When you can factual prove that republicans supported civil rights MORE than democrats thats a historical lesson. Hell, the 1964 civil rights were based on the 1875 civil rights stuff that was brought in by a couple of republicans and signed into law by Grant. That doesn't mean they aren't all, dems and reps, closet homophobic bigots with pointy hats and swastikas in their closets....it just means from a historical viewpoint Voodoo was flatly wrong. I will take a voting record, an recordable action, over perception any day.

Currently, I think they are all assholes that need to have 4-6 year limits placed on their service to get fresh blood flowing. There is a culture of entitlement and I would even go so far as to say a culture of ruling elites that live in the bubble of Washington. They are as disconnected from America as Hollywood is and it reflects in their shoe box points of view that seldom reflect what their constituents feel.

We will never change the corruption and politicking of government until people are forced to do their good deeds then get the hell out. The lifers in Washington have no reason to do anything quickly. In fact, it could be said they have a vested interest in making things last as long as possible so they are relevant for as long as possible.

Hell, I would love to base their salary and benefits on an average americans. Make it incentive based....make americans much mo betta and you win as well.

[Schatze]

FFS double post trying to edit.

[Schatze]

Uhm you guys are totally ignoring the fact that the parties basically flipped ideologies around the civil rights act period, with all the Dixie democrats fleeing to join the Republican party.

You do know that has happened multiple times in US history... Right? The flip in ideologies then caused that whole neoconservative aisle crossing (neo-cons were former democrats).

[Saediien]

He who seeks reasoned discourse about politics, history, or religion on a video game message board will inevitably be disappointed.

Anyway, would that the so-called "conservatives" who want to get rid of habeas corpus would have the intellectual honesty to call themselves "authoritarian cultists with daddy issues" instead.

[Saediien]

No, the neocons were not former Democrats, remember, Barry Goldwater was a neocon according to Khorum! You are obviously anti-semitic or something!

[Havelock]

Originally Posted by Saediien

(3) Voodoochile78's frothiness and arguments about the 1964 civil rights act aside, are all you guys with your haughty pronouncements about the noble anti-racist Republicans really fooling yourself into thinking that today's Democrats are all closet racists but the GOP is filled with MLK types? That's hopelessly naive, not to mention completely inconsistent with demographic data about black and white voting patterns.

I don't think you were addressing me with this, but I respond to castigate the wayward Republican party of the Bush era. I suspsect more Republicans than Democrats are racists. A substantial number of racist Democrats became Republicans. But the Republican party does have a noble past fighting racism, and just because the current GOP is ignorant of or openly hostile to some (most?) of the party's great traditions doesn't mean we shouldn't remember and honor the good things the party did in the past.

Originally Posted by Saediien

(4) Strom Thurmond may have helped Judge Perry get appointed, but that's exactly where Judge Perry's affinity with the political program of the GOP ends. Perry's appointment and the fact that Thurmond actually allowed black people to work for him (how enlightened!) won't take you very far in proving anything other than that Thurmond was a good politician who remained in office for several decades.

It doesn't say much beyond that about Thurmond, but the fact that Thurmond had to change his views (or at least publicly pretend to; I don't know which is the case) shows that his earlier position was politically untenable regardless of which party claimed him. It's not as if the GOP adopted the hardcore segregationism of the pre-Kennedy Southern Democrats.

Originally Posted by Schatze

Uhm you guys are totally ignoring the fact that the parties basically flipped ideologies around the civil rights act period, with all the Dixie democrats fleeing to join the Republican party.

If by "totally ignoring" you mean "discussing at length," then sure.

Originally Posted by tad10

Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act on grounds it was unconstitutional

No doubt, but a lot of people used this argument as a fig leaf to conceal their racist motives.

Originally Posted by Voodoochile

WOW! Havelock is now claiming that the Republican Party isn't the party of Southern Racism, but that it's the Democrats instead.

If you had a nickel for every straw man you made, you'd be rich beyond all dreams of avarice.

Originally Posted by Voodoochile

"Back in the day," Republicans like Strom Thurmond were setting record filibusters (over 24 hours of talking!) to keep racism alive.

So because Robert Byrd only filibustered the Civil Rights Acts for 14 hours, he's off the hook?

I'm not making any claims that the Democrats are the party of racism, that there aren't racists in the Republican party, or that a large number of then-Democrats didn't become Republicans. What I am saying is that your statement is demonstrably false and represents a flagrant attempt to rewrite history for partisan advantage. Rather than add some nuance when given the opportunity, you elected to go into full-bore attack dog mode without even reading the link. Many Republicans in the past deserve to be celebrated for their efforts with respect to civil rights, not to see their history vandalized by unethical thugs seeking partisan advantage.

People who venerate their ideologies at the expense of truth, be they Democrats or Republicans, are jackasses.

[Saediien]

Originally Posted by Havelock

It's not as if the GOP adopted the hardcore segregationism of the pre-Kennedy Southern Democrats.

Fair enough. Since 1964 or so, though, it certainly hasn't been the Democrats utilizing Nixon's "Southern Strategy", giving speeches about states rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi (coincidence? mirabile dictu!), airing Willie Horton ads, airing ads conveying the message that Harold Ford Jr. is a bad candidate because he's black and might have sex with white women, patronizing Bob Jones University (before the ban on interracial dating was retired) while on the campaign trail, scapegoating Latino aliens (and/or Muslims in general) as the gravest threat to American safety and well-being since the Communists, or who have had recent ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens.

By their fruits, you shall know them.

By a strange twist of fate, the Republican thirst for tariffs and monopoly subsidies did somehow get twisted into a war that ultimately resulted in the de jure elimination of slavery. And the Southern senators opposed to the Civil Rights Act were mostly Democrats, at least before almost all of them became Republicans. But (and this is not directed at Havelock) don't fall all over yourselves lionizing the Republicans as crusaders for racial justice just because voodoo got his facts wrong.