NationStates Jolt Archive

You finally showed common sense here!



Then again I could be mistaken. Do you need a litany of reasons why gas prices are as high as they are?No. War in the middle east will do just fine.

The cost of fuel today has everything to do with drilling platforms in the Gulf being affected by Katrina, and little to do with Iraq.Before Hurricane Katrina gas prices where still exceedingly high. I refuse to believe you are that idiotic to believe that gas prices were high only after Katrina. They did go up, but they were already extraordinarily high.

Actually if you'd have read his book you'd know that he's been employed by Reagon, two Bushes and Clinton and blames all of them for what has happened. Not just GW.

In other words, he was in charge of CT when Islamist terrorism was getting stronger and bolder, and he passes the buck. Hardly impressive.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...oodContrEC.doc
and STFU.

That was a whole lot of nothing.

No. War in the middle east will do just fine.

I knew you had no knowledge of basic economics, or any desire to have such knowledge. It might lead you to believe that not everything is Bush's fault.

No. War in the middle east will do just fine.

So your saying that is the sole reason?

Before Hurricane Katrina gas prices where still exceedingly high. I refuse to believe you are that idiotic to believe that gas prices were high only after Katrina. They did go up, but they were already extraordinarily high.

And now gas prices are down below 3.00 a gallon again. Go figure :rolleyes:

Before Hurricane Katrina gas prices where still exceedingly high. I refuse to believe you are that idiotic to believe that gas prices were high only after Katrina. They did go up, but they were already extraordinarily high.

In terms of real dollars adjusted for inflation, the gas prices AFTER a year of the current Iraq War were LOWER than the prices of the mid-1980s.

In fact, lower in terms of real dollars than prices in the early 1960s.

Nope - not high prices due to war. Nope.

In terms of real dollars adjusted for inflation, the gas prices AFTER a year of the current Iraq War were LOWER than the prices of the mid-1980s.

In fact, lower in terms of real dollars than prices in the early 1960s.

Nope - not high prices due to war. Nope.

To explain your extreme misinformation, Canada6 -

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/Inflation_Oil_20050819.gif

The above chart shows why oil prices have not yet put as big a crimp in our budgets as it did back in 1980. Back then the monthly average price peaked at $38 per barrel (although the intraday prices spiked much higher).

The common price quoted is for the all time high of Oil prices is the price that the highest barrel ever sold for. That price doesn't really have any effect on the price consumers paid. What really matters is the average price the refineries had to pay for the whole month.

Adjusted for inflation in July 2005 dollars this $38 peak is the equivalent of paying $96.81 today. This number is constantly changing as we adjust for inflation at the current moment.

In other words, Oil would have to average $96.81 for the entire month to be as high as the price we saw in December of 1979. But we are "only" paying a little over half that amount.

Another factor that makes the Oil price worse in 1979 is the fact that back in '79 interest rates were two to three times higher than they are now, peaking in the high teens. Combine lower mortgage rates with lower taxes and the modern household actually has $500 extra cash available each month... which will buy a lot of gasoline.

Another key issue is that unemployment rates for workers with four years or more of college are running about 1.5%-2%. These are the highest wage earners who pump the biggest percentage of cash into our overall economy. Having them fully employed is keeping our economy burning.

Overall, with these other mitigating factors even if we had $100 a barrel oil today the shock would not be as severe to our economy as $38 oil was in 1979. But as you can see from the chart we are still nowhere near $100/barrel Oil average monthly price.

How Did we get here?

From 1946 until the early 1970's the nominal price of oil remained basically flat but the inflation adjusted price of Oil actually declined slightly.

The tremendous spike in the 1970's resulted from the Arab Oil embargo and OPEC taking control of Oil prices. Prior to that the US government had forced US producers to produce oil at controlled prices so U.S. production had declined and more and more oil had come from overseas. This is what eventually resulted in OPEC gaining enough power over our supply to allow the embargo to have any teeth. Whenever prices are artificially held back it works like a stretched slingshot, eventually when it is released it will explode in an effort to return to the free market price causing major disruptions in the process.

As the oil price adjusted to true market pricing it spiked up and has been floating freely ever since.

Recently, forces have converged to create a similar situation. But this time it is a transportation/refinery shortage problem.

Remember the Exxon Valdez (the ship that crashed off the coast of Alaska) which spilled millions of barrels of oil all over the coast? Well believe it or not, that was the beginning of our current problem. Because of that accident and a couple of others like it, governments around the world began outlawing single hulled tankers.

This created a shortage of double hulled tankers. And double hulled tankers are very expensive to build and weren't very profitable with oil at $20/ barrel. So there was no rush to build them (plus they aren't built in a day even if there was a rush!)

In addition to not enough tankers, there aren't enough pipelines or refineries either. Who wants a pipeline or refinery in their backyard?

So we are caught in a crunch between inadequate transportation, maxed out production and an increase in demand for oil. Because the US and China are both coming out of a recession both countries are demanding vast increases in oil.

Now add Katrina to the mix - and shut off a significant percentage of US oil production - AND shut off refining capacity - for which there is no excess.

Is America Dying?

It doesn't appear to be, at least not from this insider's view. We went through a "down cycle" in the 1970s, too, but got over it.

In other words, he was in charge of CT when Islamist terrorism was getting stronger and bolder, and he passes the buck. Hardly impressive.It's not his fault that Bush the elder had no official anti-terrorist policy, and this hands where tied.

That was a whole lot of nothing.Perhaps this is more appropriate. Less technobabble and more common english. Easier to understand for certain folk.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/105cong/fullcomm/hr478/hr478tes.htm


"In early 2004 the Federal government withdrew moneys from levee maintenance around New Orleans to pay for the homeland security and the Iraq war budgets." IN http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Graham/

I knew you had no knowledge of basic economics, or any desire to have such knowledge. It might lead you to believe that not everything is Bush's fault.I knew you had the eager desire to judge people you don't know.

In terms of real dollars adjusted for inflation, the gas prices AFTER a year of the current Iraq War were LOWER than the prices of the mid-1980s.Oh, well considering people couldn't get gas in those days... what a relief... :rolleyes:

Nope - not high prices due to war. Nope.:D

Oh, well considering people couldn't get gas in those days... what a relief... :rolleyes:

:D

See? I had you there!

Is America Dying?

Yes. Only a return to the limited, de-centralized government our Founders created will save us.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/Inflation_Oil_20050819.gif

Notice where the peaks are? Always during wars and instability in the middle east.

See? I had you there!

At least you got through to him about 1 thing. Now we have to get through to him about everything else.

See? I had you there!
??????????????

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/Inflation_Oil_20050819.gif

Notice where the peaks are? Always during wars and instability in the middle east.

I didn't know Afghanistan was in the Middle East. I didn't know the USSR was in the Middle East.

It's not his fault that Bush the elder had no official anti-terrorist policy, and this hands where tied.

He was in a position to do something about it. Clintoon's terrorist policy was nothing to envy.

Perhaps this is more appropriate. Less technobabble and more common english. Easier to understand for certain folk.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/...8/hr478tes.htm


"In early 2004 the Federal government withdrew moneys from levee maintenance around New Orleans to pay for the homeland security and the Iraq war budgets." IN http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Graham/

And this ensured that idiot Nagin wouldn't read his own city's emergency plan, and that idiot Blanco would hold off declaring a state of emergency, and sending in the National Guard (the vast majority of whom were not deployed to Iraq)?

These idiots made the disaster worse than it needed to be.

No amount of Federal funding could change the fact that the French decided to build a city in a swamp under sea level.

At least you got through to him about 1 thing. Now we have to get through to him about everything else.
??????????????

I was being sacastic. He's trying to pass the idea the inflated price of gas is normal or periodic. It's not.

To state that gas prices are lower than they were in the early 80's after the Iraq war, is insane, considering the seriousness of that said crisis in the 80's.

I didn't know Afghanistan was in the Middle East. I didn't know the USSR was in the Middle East.

The peak was during the war between Iran and Iraq - it disrupted oil traffic in the Persian Gulf.

??????????????

I was being sacastic. He's trying to pass the idea the inflated price of gas is normal or periodic. It's not.

Well I'm glad that your not an economist because it is.

The peak was during the war between Iran and Iraq - it disrupted oil traffic in the Persian Gulf.

The Iran Iraq war started in 1980. The USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979. According to your graph, it peaked in December 1979.

The Iran Iraq war started in 1980. The USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979. According to your graph, it peaked in December 1979.

Do you remember the Iranian hostage crisis?

Do you remember the Iranian hostage crisis?

3 years before my time. And Iran isn't part of the Middle East either. Not really at anyrate.

He was in a position to do something about it. That's what he got fired for.

And this ensured that idiot Nagin wouldn't read his own city's emergency plan, and that idiot Blanco would hold off declaring a state of emergency, and sending in the National Guard (the vast majority of whom were not deployed to Iraq)?Proper fUnding and maintenance would've ensured that it would not have been necessary.

No amount of Federal funding could change the fact that the French decided to build a city in a swamp under sea level.Yes but federal funding could've prevented the flood. While you're trying to give lip service there are countries that are mostly below sea level. Their dams and levees are properly funded. *Hint. Northern Europe and famous for liberal governments.

I didn't know Afghanistan was in the Middle East. I didn't know the USSR was in the Middle East.

It depends on how you define "Middle East." Some people consider Pakistan, Afghanistan, and some of the other 'stans "Middle East," others consider all countries east of Iran as not part of the Middle East. Some consider countries as far west as Morocco as part of the Middle East, others don't even consider Libya as part of it. It all depends on who you talk to.

Well I'm glad that your not an economist because it is.Normal periodic variations are one thing. War on the other hand will always hike the price to astronomical levels.

3 years before my time. And Iran isn't part of the Middle East either. Not really at anyrate.
:D :D :D :D :D :D It's best you keep this to yourself...

That's what he got fired for.

His term as CT idiot produced nothing worthwhile.

Proper fUnding and maintenance would've ensured that it would not have been necessary.

Not relevant, they could have acted and didn't, instead idiot Nagin ranted about racism, and idiot Blanco had a little cry on TV.

Yes but federal funding could've prevented the flood. While you're trying to give lip service there are countries that are mostly below sea level. Their dams and levees are properly funded. *Hint. Northern Europe and famous for liberal governments.

Funding that was not forthcoming since the Johnson Administration, and before.

Normal periodic variations are one thing. War on the other hand will always hike the price to astronomical levels.

Then why didn't the oil prices go up during THREE Arab/Israeli wars? Come to think of it, it didn't go up during two India/Pakistani Wars either.

That's what he got fired for.

Proper fUnding and maintenance would've ensured that it would not have been necessary.

Yes but federal funding could've prevented the flood. While you're trying to give lip service there are countries that are mostly below sea level. Their dams and levees are properly funded. *Hint. Northern Europe and famous for liberal governments.

As I recall, I've posted pictures of over 400 buses that Nagin had at his disposal BEFORE the flood - buses mentioned in his own emergency plan - that he did not use.

The riots and looting took place BEFORE the flood started.

If you understood the nature of the relationship between States and the Federal government, you would understand that the National Guard was under the command of the Governor of Louisiana - not the President. Keeping order is her job - and Nagin's job (using the New Orleans police).

I suppose you'll say now that the mysterious list of 200 non-existent New Orleans police on the payroll that Nagin is being investigated for now is also the Feds fault - that he put non-existent men on a payroll because he wasn't getting enough Federal help.

While I would agree that FEMA screwed up - they were by no means the only ones. And throwing money at a problem is no guarantee that it will be solved.

Funding that was not forthcoming since the Johnson Administration, and before.And that's where the big problem is.


p.s. thanks for finally aknowledging that there were funding problems. ;)

And throwing money at a problem is no guarantee that it will be solved.

That's one of the most intelligent things I've heard lately. Hats off to you, Sierra.

*Tosses Sierra BTHP an ice-cold beer*

Then why didn't the oil prices go up during THREE Arab/Israeli wars? Come to think of it, it didn't go up during two India/Pakistani Wars either.Wars in heavy oil producing nations.

And that's where the big problem is.

p.s. thanks for finally aknowledging that where funding problems. ;)

Funding doesn't necessarily solve anything.

As an example, examination of the levees by the Corps of Engineers shows that the levees were improperly constructed - they were never overtopped by the water - they subsided at their bases and crumbled.

They were not built according to the design, even though that was what was paid for.

I see. Since to you, money solves everything, let's hire the SAME contractor and give him ten times as much money - and watch them screw it up again, only this time, for more money.

As I recall, I've posted pictures of over 400 buses that Nagin had at his disposal BEFORE the flood - buses mentioned in his own emergency plan - that he did not use.

The riots and looting took place BEFORE the flood started.

If you understood the nature of the relationship between States and the Federal government, you would understand that the National Guard was under the command of the Governor of Louisiana - not the President. Keeping order is her job - and Nagin's job (using the New Orleans police).

I suppose you'll say now that the mysterious list of 200 non-existent New Orleans police on the payroll that Nagin is being investigated for now is also the Feds fault - that he put non-existent men on a payroll because he wasn't getting enough Federal help.

While I would agree that FEMA screwed up - they were by no means the only ones. And throwing money at a problem is no guarantee that it will be solved.
Since when have I ever defended Nagin? Or the Governor?

Wars in heavy oil producing nations.

Correction:

Wars that actually result in major supply disruptions, either through oil embargos (the Israeli conflict resulted in this), or through traffic stoppage in the Persian Gulf (this happened during the Iran-Iraq war).

Just having a war there doesn't necessarily stop oil production or transport.

Funding doesn't necessarily solve anything.Perhaps not. But non funding gaurantees failure.

Perhaps not. But non funding gaurantees failure.

That's not true, either.

Consider this.

If no one had ever spent the money to build any levees at all in New Orleans throughout its history, then the city would have had a much different layout - and people would not have been living in areas below sea level.

In addition, levees and ship channels destroy the natural features that tend to limit flooding - such as swamp areas and wetlands.

Funding can cause failure.

Correction:

Wars that actually result in major supply disruptions, either through oil embargos (the Israeli conflict resulted in this), or through traffic stoppage in the Persian Gulf (this happened during the Iran-Iraq war).

Just having a war there doesn't necessarily stop oil production or transport.I didn't say that it was 'just having a war'. It is one cause but there are several others. I have also mentioned political instability in oil producing countries.

Wars in heavy oil producing nations.

Or with heavy oil producing capacity. So tell me why the Price of Oil didn't jump during the 3 Arab Israeli Wars.

That's not true, either.

Consider this.

If no one had ever spent the money to build any levees at all in New Orleans throughout its history, then the city would have had a much different layout - and people would not have been living in areas below sea level.

In addition, levees and ship channels destroy the natural features that tend to limit flooding - such as swamp areas and wetlands.

Funding can cause failure.
So what exactly are you trying to say? That because they built a city where they souldn't have in the first place, we should wait for a hurricane to break the levee, cause a flood, and watch them rot?

So what exactly are you trying to say? That because they built a city where they souldn't have in the first place, we should wait for a hurricane to break the levee, cause a flood, and watch them rot?

No. I'm saying that funding doesn't solve everything. If you spend money foolishly on a site that ultimately will be overwhelmed by nature no matter how much you spend, you're going to fail to solve the problem.

Careful planning from the beginning - not necessarily "funding" - would have prevented the whole problem. Or at least mitigated it.

The interesting thing is that contractors took billions of dollars and built crap. The government (Feds, State AND Local) believed that by spending that money that they had solved the problem.

They were idiots.

I should go into contracting - I could use the money. I hear they're going to be funding a lot of levee work.

So what exactly are you trying to say? That because they built a city where they souldn't have in the first place, we should wait for a hurricane to break the levee, cause a flood, and watch them rot?

Since the Governor didn't allow the Red Cross go to the Superdome OR the Convention center......

Also, why didn't the LA Senators push harder for the funding? WHy didn't they take the 7 million that went to a certain study and move it towards doing the levees?

Since the Governor didn't allow the Red Cross go to the Superdome OR the Convention center......

Also, why didn't the LA Senators push harder for the funding? WHy didn't they take the 7 million that went to a certain study and move it towards doing the levees?I can't answer that. I don't know if they did push for more funding or if they did not. I don't have that knowledge. If they didn't then they should have.

p.s. took me a while to figure out that you weren't confusing two hockey teams when you mentioned LA Senators. :D

Is America collapsing?

Dunno.

Only thing I'm sure of is this: All previous superpowers thought they would last forever. Not one of them did.

I wouldn't put money on America being the first either.

The gop is collapsing, and Bush is collapsing. The gop isn't america and bush isn't america. So no America is not collapsing. It's been severely damaged but it will recover.

The gop is collapsing
Really?

A party that consistantly wins elections is collapsing? A party that controls both Houses of Congress, and the White House, and an increasing number of state governments is collapsing?

What would the signs be of a party "riding high"? Constantly losing?

Really?
According to the american approval ratings of congress and considering that the gop is in majority. Yes... they are. DeLay is just one sad example.
However next year's mid term election will be conclusive.

According to the american approval ratings of congress and considering that the gop is in majority. Yes... they are. DeLay is just one sad example.
However next year's mid term election will be conclusive.

You're making the assumption that the American public can remember something from one month to the next. Or that De Lay will be found guilty.

You're making the assumption that the American public can remember something from one month to the next.Am I supposed to say now: How lucky for the GOP that they can't? :D
I'm not making any assupmtion at all. The approval ratings for the president and congress are very low. Republicans are in majority so I have reason to believe that the majority blames them.

Or that De Lay will be found guilty.Guilty or not, public opinion of him and his party will drop. It's a natural consequence. OJ was found innocent, for example.

Am I supposed to say now: How lucky for the GOP that they can't? :D
I'm not making any assupmtion at all. The approval ratings for the president and congress are very low. Republicans are in majority so I have reason to believe that the majority blames them.

Guilty or not, public opinion of him and his party will drop. It's a natural consequence. OJ was found innocent, for example.

The problem is that you have to get a message out to the American people about what you would do differently. If the Democrats have a message, it's not going anywhere and no one is hearing anything except "Bush sucks" or "Republicans suck".

We were at a recent town meeting here, and that's all that the Democratic supporters chanting at the meeting could say - "Bush sucks".

Nice message, but it doesn't solve anything, does it?

Guilty or not, public opinion of him and his party will drop. It's a natural consequence. OJ was found innocent, for example.

Guess that explains this:

Republican Jerry Kilgore squared off against Democrat Tim Kaine in the final debate before the general election in Virginia next month - what is important is the issues which were front and center. According to the Associated Press, the major bones of contention were taxes and the death penalty - with Kilgore pointing out Kaine's liberal record on both:

Kilgore persistently made references to Kaine's failure of leadership as the Mayor of Richmond, a city that was mired in mediocrity, scandals, crime and substandard public schools. In addition, Kilgore highlighted Kaine's consistent support for higher taxes and a member of City Council, as Mayor and as Lieutenant Governor.

Tim Kaine appeared rattled and shaken as his liberal record was brought to the forefront throughout the debate. He made it clear he opposes the death penalty. He supports higher taxes. And he stands firm in support of taxpayer benefits for illegal aliens.

So much for the any idea that we're losing the battle - that we're muting our positions or that liberalism is making a come-back. Conservatism continues to increasingly resonate with the American people - and I think the election results next month in Virginia will prove it.

Within just five years of the Presidency of George W Bush we have seen the following.

No particular Order

All of our Allies abandoning us
9/11
The Iraq War
Enron/WorldCom debacles
Katrina and Rita Huricanes
Economic Recession (borderlining total collapse)
Inflated Gas Prices
Prisoner Abuse Scandels
Approval Ratings went from 80% to low 40% in 4 years 01-now
Corrupt Leadership at ALL levels of government (both parties)
China's Military/Economic Ascendancy
The European Union Economic Revival
Job exportation to India

Wow how ridiculous. All of our allies abandoning us (explains the coalition)... the iraq war.. enron/worldcom.. did you know Europe has far more scandals as far as that is concerned (parmalat anyone?).. the katrina/rita hurricanes.. seems like we didn't get hit that hard from either.

And the one that really gets me.. economic recession borderline total collapse? Let me ask you.. do you fail to use your brain? There is no economic recession even with high gas prices. And they aren't inflated either. these prices are due to the cause of refinery limitation.

Borderline collapse.. damn.. I wonder how ignorant you have to be actually beliieve that... you just have to look at the reality.

Corrupt leadership? Maybe. But let me just say it is far more limited here then in China.

China's military and economic growth has been on the rise for years, but now is being hampered.. especially economic growth because of high oil prices. High oil prices have had a muted effect here in the US, but the Chinese cannot afford these prices. In fact it forced them to explore their own domestic oil.

When you put all this into a big pot and stir it up this spells trouble... But does it spell the beginning of the end of the United States as a Superpower, or even as a nation? Is this country built on the ideals of liberty and justice and freedom now like an old person on life support who is just begging to be given a quick death rather than a lingering one?

Is America Dying?

No it is not. You're full of it I have to say.

America is growing from what I see.

And if you want my answer on the Iraq war.. yes I support it and still do, but I also support prosecution of any individual who commits human rights abuses. Face it, the Bush adminstration did not cover it up. In fact the prosecution of these soldiers who committed abuses went forward. Human rights abuses make me angry and I'm happy those responsible were pursued.

The problem is that you have to get a message out to the American people about what you would do differently. If the Democrats have a message, it's not going anywhere and no one is hearing anything except "Bush sucks" or "Republicans suck".

We were at a recent town meeting here, and that's all that the Democratic supporters chanting at the meeting could say - "Bush sucks".

Nice message, but it doesn't solve anything, does it?Of course it doesn't. That's the major problem with the Democratic Party. They've got ideas and alternatives, most them are rather scattered. They lack a solid cohesive core of members, or leadership or what have you, that would enable them to focus on getting those ideas across. Americans need to hear a clear message. They've got one from the republicans (with whom I totally disagree), and they don't have one from the democrats.

Conservativism ressonates strongly with some Americans. Not all of them. Americans are also discontent with the government, the president and the whole of congress. Change is needed. I only hope that the democratic party can provide a clear message, other than Bush sucks. No matter how painstakingly true that statement is.

Of course it doesn't. That's the major problem with the Democratic Party. They've got ideas and alternatives, most them are rather scattered. They lack a solid cohesive core of members, or leadership or what have you, that would enable them to focus on getting those ideas across. Americans need to hear a clear message. They've got one from the republicans (with whom I totally disagree), and they don't have one from the democrats.

Conservativism ressonates strongly with some Americans. Not all of them. Americans are also discontent with the government, the president and the whole of congress. Change is needed. I only hope that the democratic party can provide a clear message, other than Bush sucks. No matter how painstakingly true that statement is.

Try and think of me as a Newt Gingrich Republican, if that helps you sort out my ideology.

Interestingly, when they did the Contract With America, to "end welfare as we know it", guess who bought into it and claimed credit for the idea himself?

Of course it doesn't. That's the major problem with the Democratic Party. They've got ideas and alternatives, most them are rather scattered. They lack a solid cohesive core of members, or leadership or what have you, that would enable them to focus on getting those ideas across. Americans need to hear a clear message. They've got one from the republicans (with whom I totally disagree), and they don't have one from the democrats.

Conservativism ressonates strongly with some Americans. Not all of them. Americans are also discontent with the government, the president and the whole of congress. Change is needed. I only hope that the democratic party can provide a clear message, other than Bush sucks. No matter how painstakingly true that statement is.

You know the problem with your statements? Is they just don't flow across as true. I would like someone stronger then Bush, but the democrats don't have anyone for the job. And they are going too far left to actually do anything right. They need to come back to the center, and even bring back some of their own conservative democrats. Lets face it, the radical left wing in this country is and always be a very small minority of people. They need to stop appealing to those people, and start appealing to most americans.

Change is needed? Oh I agree to a certain degree... I agree that some leaders should be changed (there should be a more moderate republican.. like Giulani, or McCain in the White House in 2008..). Lets face it.. there are more moderates in the republican party whether you like to admit or not, more potential to improve the situation.

Mesatecala! You're Back!:D

To a certain degree.. I'm very busy with classes.

Republicans freed all the slaves, and showed how serious they were about it.
They "freed" them alright. They terrorized them, and burned them at the stake. They sent them to the back of the bus, and made them use different washrooms. They wouldn't hire them unless they were willing to accept slave wages. They raped their women and beat their men.

They wouldn't let their kids associate with them and barred them from their schools. Yeah, Republicans did a lot for the African Americans alright.

And they fought tooth and nail to bar them from being equal in any sense, by campaigning against their right to vote. Republicans devised poll taxes and literary tests that totally discriminated against blacks and kept them from voting.

And many people will remember Selma Alabama for "Black Sunday" in 1965?

It took a Democrat in the Presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson, to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and give blacks some sense of equality.

Your recollection of history is appalling.

[QUOTE=CanuckHeavenIt took a Democrat in the Presidency, Lyndon B. Johnson, to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and give blacks some sense of equality.

Your recollection of history is appalling.[/QUOTE]

You should talk. You have just proven that you know absolutely nothing about US history or are a blatant liar. What a load of horse-crap.

The primary opponent to it was a prominent Democrat, Russell, stating "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." . Southern Democrats, who controlled the south since the end of Reconstruction and introduced the Jim Crow laws, filibustered it for almost three months. Here's the vote totals:

The Original House Version: 290-130
The Senate Version: 73-27
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126
By Party: The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:

Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35
By Party and Region:

The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24
The Senate Version:

Southern Democrats: 1-21
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 46-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5


And who was one of those who voted against it? Daddy Al Gore.

Can you make up any more history?

There's a problem here. Certain people seem to be equating 'Republican' with conservative, racist, uneducated, and southern. This is an ignorant assumption. Lincoln was a Republican. We're talking classic Republican here, not the modern party. Very different. Many people who embody the traits some associate with 'Republicans' were and are actually Democrats.

You should talk. You have just proven that you know absolutely nothing about US history or are a blatant liar. What a load of horse-crap.

The primary opponent to it was a prominent Democrat, Russell, stating "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." . Southern Democrats, who controlled the south since the end of Reconstruction and introduced the Jim Crow laws, filibustered it for almost three months. Here's the vote totals:

The Original House Version: 290-130
The Senate Version: 73-27
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126
By Party: The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:

Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35
By Party and Region:

The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24
The Senate Version:

Southern Democrats: 1-21
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 46-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5


And who was one of those who voted against it? Daddy Al Gore.

Can you make up any more history?


CanuckHeaven is also unfamiliar with the only Senator who is a member of the Klan - Senatory Robert Byrd - a Democrat.