What is the difference between a dem and a republican

[Zippy Chippy]

2 things are bad about this post.

A. I'm 35 and asking this.
B. I'm coming to PA over Google.

I don't know politics and will never understand how you can be anything other than independent. I could like a Rep one election and like a Democrat the next election.

My girlfriends father hates Obama, loves GW, hates olberman, loves bill oreilly. Asked him to put CNN on and said "I only watch fox news"

Someone just told me that is a Rep station.

I don't understand how reps automatically hate every dem and so forth. What is the maindifference. History was always my worst subject.

[46zilzal]

MOST never put a challenging idea to task....Put the point of view to scrutiny, evaluate it objectively, then, if you can, take a position today, which, in view of the ways of the world, can change at a moment's notice.

[Robert Goren]

2 things are bad about this post.

A. I'm 35 and asking this.
B. I'm coming to PA over Google.

I don't know politics and will never understand how you can be anything other than independent. I could like a Rep one election and like a Democrat the next election.

My girlfriends father hates Obama, loves GW, hates olberman, loves bill oreilly. Asked him to put CNN on and said "I only watch fox news"

Someone just told me that is a Rep station.

I don't understand how reps automatically hate every dem and so forth. What is the maindifference. History was always my worst subject.That makes you a republican. ;)

[Greyfox]

I'm indepdendent for lack of a better descriptor.

The following site has some interesting differences posted that are probably open to debate:

http://www.markshannon.com/republicandemocrat.htm

[Greyfox]

I'm indepdendent for lack of a better descriptor.

The following site has some interesting differences posted that are probably open to debate:

http://www.markshannon.com/republicandemocrat.htm

Here's a more concrete opinion offered at another site.



"Difference Between Republicans and Democrats ??A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars."

[boxcar]

That makes you a republican. ;)

As usual, you have it backwards. There would be no Dems today if politicians took to heart the lessons of nations' political histories; for liberalism in all its vile forms has failed miserably -- as it must! It's doomed to fail due to man's universal moral/spiritual condition. This irrefutable fact is what makes socialism/communism a thoroughly self-defeating ideology.

Boxcar

[riskman]

Which Do You Believe?

I believe this chart was designed by a Republican.

[jballscalls]

Here's a more concrete opinion offered at another site.



"Difference Between Republicans and Democrats ??A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars."

this is the old hand up not a hand out thing. and thinking back to the jobs i've had in my life, i've been given them by all democrats except one, ouir GM at River was a huge republican. but other than that, tis been all dems

[JustRalph]

please stay home next November.

And for God's sake don't ask Jerry Bailey who to vote for .............

[Zippy Chippy]

please stay home next November.

And for God's sake don't ask Jerry Bailey who to vote for .............


I just belly laughed

[Robert Goren]

As usual, you have it backwards. There would be no Dems today if politicians took to heart the lessons of nations' political histories; for liberalism in all its vile forms has failed miserably -- as it must! It's doomed to fail due to man's universal moral/spiritual condition. This irrefutable fact is what makes socialism/communism a thoroughly self-defeating ideology.

Boxcar I am not the one who believes that history only started 10,000 years ago.:bang:

[Tom]

You can't be an independent and watch CNN or MSNBC. You will throw up.

[skate]

I am not the one who believes that history only started 10,000 years ago.:bang:

That part of history is finished.

History "started" 1 minute ago.

[Robert Goren]

That part of history is finished.

History "started" 1 minute ago. Semantics. :bang: Or to rephrase history stopped 10,000 years ago. Take your pick. The idea is the same. Nothing is older than 10,000 years according boxcar. He has stated so here several times. If I am wrong, I will apologize.

[boxcar]

I am not the one who believes that history only started 10,000 years ago.:bang:

What does that have to do with known political history? Connect those dots for me, will ya? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Semantics. :bang: Or to rephrase history stopped 10,000 years ago. Take your pick. The idea is the same. Nothing is older than 10,000 years according boxcar. He has stated so here several times. If I am wrong, I will apologize.

Start apologizing because you will be very hard-pressed to find any post of MINE wherein I stated the age of the earth. Start digging and come with such a post or make good on your apology. ;)

Thanks,
Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

...What is the maindifference...

There's a song that sums it up in a rhyme that is easy enough to remember...

"...Republicans is fine if you're a multimillionaire,

Them democrats are fair if all you own is what you wear,

Neither of 'ems REALLY right cause neither of them care,

'Bout that Hot Plate Heaven... cause they ain't been there..."

50dpYQZzaV4

[boxcar]

:lol: :lol: Ain't it the truth?

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

Start apologizing because you will be very hard-pressed to find any post of MINE wherein I stated the age of the earth. Start digging and come with such a post or make good on your apology. ;)

Thanks,
BoxcarI did and I am sorry. I got you confused with someone else.:eek:

[boxcar]

I did and I am sorry. I got you confused with someone else.:eek:

Probably Hcap. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[Valuist]

That makes you a republican. ;)

Repubs are too busy focusing on the future rather than the rear view mirror.

[mostpost]

I did and I am sorry. I got you confused with someone else.:eek:
I don't know that an apology is appropriate here. While we may not be able to find any posts in which Boxcar stated the earth was less than 10,000 years old, it is obvious that this is his belief. Otherwise why would he have stated:
Humor me, 'cap:Let's say that God, when he created Adam, created him to be in the prime of his life -- maybe about 30 years of age -- mature, fully developed. And he placed Adam in the Garden on an equally fully developed, mature planet. And in that Garden, it is written, God placed every green plant to be food for Adam and for the created animals, who were also mature and fully developed. If God is really omnipotent and he can do all this, why couldn't he have created the entire Universe with the appearance of age -- a universe as mature and developed as Adam and Eve, the animals and the plant life on earth?
The above is from the "RNC Survey" thread; post #68
or here, from the "Swine Flu" thread...post #41 where he said:
Btw, 'cap, what if God created this world with the appearance of age? Would not the world appear older than it really is? Or is this something that would be too difficult for God to do?
Add to this the uncountable posts in which Boxcar espouses a literal interpretation of the bible and it becomes clear that your opinion is an accurate one. The only mistake you made was in tieing it to a specific statement by Boxcar in this forum.

[Robert Goren]

Well, boxcar, what do you believe?

[boxcar]

Well, boxcar, what do you believe?

You should know better than to buy into anything Mosty says because he can't figure his way out of a wet paper sack. :rolleyes: All my quotes say is one thing: I don't believe the earth is billions of years old, as evolutionists do. Now...if you and your sidekick Mosty want to speculate from that I think the planet is 10,000 years old, feel free. But what if I thought the planet is only 6,000 years old? Or only 7,000 years old? 12,378 years old? 16,000 years old? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Just for your info, I wasn't around when God created the earth. I leave all foolish speculations about such things to the educated idiots of the world who weren't around either.

[mostpost]

Well, boxcar, what do you believe?
Did you really expect a definitive answer? Boxcar will always weasel and obfuscate. He thinks that prevents us from showing him for the phony he is. Guess again, Boxcar!

[boxcar]

Did you really expect a definitive answer? Boxcar will always weasel and obfuscate. He thinks that prevents us from showing him for the phony he is. Guess again, Boxcar!

Nor would I expect expect anything but the kind of drivel you posted now and earlier. And...just because I'm not saying what I think the age of the earth may be doesn't make me a phony. A phony is someone who would get caught up in a lie or a contradiction; and I an not guilty of either! Why should I speculate wildly when I'm not sure -- especially after I have posted on this forum that I have never undertook a formal study of the biblical genealogies? :bang: Besides all that, Mosty, there are enough fools in this world as there is. Far be it from me to ever emulate the likes of you!

Have a Happy Preakness,
Boxcar

[BlueShoe]

Democrats and liberals embrace socialism eagerly and work toward its success.
Republicans and conservatives reject socialism and work toward its defeat.

[boxcar]

Democrats and liberals embrace socialism eagerly and work toward its success.
Republicans and conservatives reject socialism and work toward its defeat.

Except for the RINOs in the Republican Party, who are even more despicable than "Democrats and liberals".

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

A simple way to say it is Dems care about all Americans and Republicans care about the man in the mirror.

That's why Dems pushed for SS and Medicare for Seniors and heathcare for all. Meanwhile, Republicans perpetually push hard to cut taxes. Doesn't matter if the country is fighting a war in Iraq. They just gotta cut taxes. And entitlements. And anything else that does not help the man in the mirror.

When I hear both parties are exactly the same I feel like puking. But I'm sure we need each other to create some kind of balance. The problem is that lately neither side has the stomach to actually pay for anything.

[bigmack]

They just gotta cut taxes. And entitlements. And anything else that does not help the man in the mirror.

The problem is that lately neither side has the stomach to actually pay for anything.
A Neanderthal thinks cutting taxes always hurts the little guy. A Neanderthal thinks entitlements can go on forever without any adjustments.

Stomach paying for anything? How 'bout stomach not paying so much?

You gotta evolve man.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/evolution.gif

[LottaKash]

A
When I hear both parties are exactly the same I feel like puking.

Well, NJ, here is another purgative for you.....Both parties suck, they just keep taking turns screwing us, and more so these days, than ever....They just each have their own concept of screwing...

Too bad you and others of the opposite persuasion, just can't see it...Perhaps you are still clinging to some old lingering idealistic image of the two party government, when they at least had the decency to make a show of it....

These days, no such effort is being made to do that any longer, they just keep giving it to us and then rub our noses in it, you know, the puke that passes for government these days, ...

best,

[hcap]

Did you really expect a definitive answer? Boxcar will always weasel and obfuscate. He thinks that prevents us from showing him for the phony he is. Guess again, Boxcar!Box believes the age of earth and universe is certainly NOT what science has proven. He compounds the problem by claiming God tricks us with an elaborate ruse. God a carnival huckster doing a "now you see it, now you don't" sleight of hand monumental misdirection by faking ALL the laws of science and mathematics.

Much worse than the simple creationist claim that the earth and universe is less than 7,000 years old. At least an honest claim.

[boxcar]

Box believes the age of earth and universe is certainly NOT what science has proven. He compounds the problem by claiming God tricks us with an elaborate ruse. God a carnival huckster doing a "now you see it, now you don't" sleight of hand monumental misdirection by faking ALL the laws of science and mathematics.

Much worse than the simple creationist claim that the earth and universe is less than 7,000 years old. At least an honest claim.

Two things: "Science" hasn't "proven" anything in terms of the age of the earth.
There's lots of disagreement among the various methods.

Secondly, God isn't the trickster. Your "science" is because it can't measure, quantify or explain the supernatural. Therefore, they have omitted supernaturalism from all their little equations, which further means they are bound to draw the wrong conclusions. This is how "science" has tricked the [gullible] masses into believing falsehoods.

Boxcar

[Fwizard]

I think that Lewis Black had it right when he said "Repubs are the party of no ideas while Dems are the party of bad ideas"

[Buckeye]

right. or do we know it all?

very simple question.

94 IQ I admit it, yet, how much more do you know than me?

Precious little I suspect. This entire Board is made up of members who average about 94. My point is IQ tests mean nothing and let's proceed from there.

Winning and producing now. Not yesterday and not "in theory". If my IQ is 10 or 1000, I still need to make money-- To freakin Day! So what I'm suggesting is think outside. Think unlike your opponent and construct your wagers accordingly.

After all it is safe to say most lose.

[46zilzal]

right. or do we know it all?

very simple question.

94 IQ I admit it, yet, how much more do you know than me?

Precious little I suspect. This entire Board is made up of members who average about 94. My point is IQ tests mean nothing and let's proceed from there.

Winning and producing now. Not yesterday and not "in theory". If my IQ is 10 or 1000, I still need to make money-- To freakin Day! So what I'm suggesting is think outside. Think unlike your opponent and construct your wagers accordingly.

After all it is safe to say most lose.
IQ tests are ridiculous once you find out how they were originally constructed...It is a comparison of mental age to chronological age.

http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq01.htm

QUOTE:Following Binet’s work, the phrase “intelligence quotient,” or “IQ,” entered the vocabulary. The IQ is the ratio of “mental age” to chronological age, with 100 being average. So, an 8 year old who passes the 10-year-old’s test would have an IQ of 10/8 x 100, or 125.

As adults it means nothing

[Buckeye]

I think that Lewis Black had it right when he said "Repubs are the party of no ideas while Dems are the party of bad ideas"

Who was then the Party of bad asses who founded this Country?

[JustRalph]

A simple way to say it is Dems care about all Americans and Republicans care about the man in the mirror.

That's why Dems pushed for SS and Medicare for Seniors and heathcare for all. Meanwhile, Republicans perpetually push hard to cut taxes. Doesn't matter if the country is fighting a war in Iraq. They just gotta cut taxes. And entitlements. And anything else that does not help the man in the mirror.
.

You kill me. That's why repubs pushed the civil rights bill thru congress
That's why repubs and conservatives give much more to charity every year

Dems care about all Americans? :lol: They care about other Dems and that is all they care about. It is called keeping and increasing the base, no matter what. Power in office is all Dems care about. Oh yeah, and slavery via soft racism and unions. They care about that because It feeds back to my original point.

[ArlJim78]

Dem's are compassionate as long as they can use other peoples money to express their compassion. Dem's have a long list of tax cheats, bribe takers, swindlers, etc, still in office! And of course their stinginess on charitable contributions are legendary. What does Biden give, something like $300-400 per year to charity? haha. meanwhile the "evil" folks like Bush and Cheney give hundreds of thousands.

[Robert Goren]

Dem's are compassionate as long as they can use other peoples money to express their compassion. Dem's have a long list of tax cheats, bribe takers, swindlers, etc, still in office! And of course their stinginess on charitable contributions are legendary. What does Biden give, something like $300-400 per year to charity? haha. meanwhile the "evil" folks like Bush and Cheney give hundreds of thousands.Joe Biden is worth a hell of lot less than Dick Cheney or George Bush.;)

[JustRalph]

Joe Biden is worth a hell of lot less than Dick Cheney or George Bush.;)

Deservedly so..........

[Lefty]

Stinks, do you not realize that when GW cut taxes that more money came into the Govt coffers than previously? Isn't more money better than less money? Republicans believe in self reliance and opportunity.
Democrats blve in spreading the wealth which actually dilutes the wealth, but they blve enough of the "takers" will keep them in office.

[skate]

Who was then the Party of bad asses who founded this Country?

Neither, they turn thy Cheeks.

[Robert Goren]

Who was then the Party of bad asses who founded this Country? That would be the democratic party. In a real twist of Irony, they called themselves republicans back then.

[hcap]

Two things: "Science" hasn't "proven" anything in terms of the age of the earth.
There's lots of disagreement among the various methods.

Secondly, God isn't the trickster. Your "science" is because it can't measure, quantify or explain the supernatural. Therefore, they have omitted supernaturalism from all their little equations, which further means they are bound to draw the wrong conclusions. This is how "science" has tricked the [gullible] masses into believing falsehoods.

BoxcarThe age of the universe is only slightly in question. What "various methods" ??
You obviously are not famiilar with any scientific methods or you wouldn't make such a silly claim
Whether it is 13, 14, or 15 billion years old may the debate. 6,000 or 10,000 is not.
Biblical genealogy is not science. A whole lot of begetting is what did in Mathew Brady in Inherit the Wind. And you are no Mathew Brady

Supernaturalism is not the realm of science.
You may believe what you want, but don't pass it off as fact.

[Buckeye]

Dem's are compassionate as long as they can use other peoples money to express their compassion. Dem's have a long list of tax cheats, bribe takers, swindlers, etc, still in office! And of course their stinginess on charitable contributions are legendary. What does Biden give, something like $300-400 per year to charity? haha. meanwhile the "evil" folks like Bush and Cheney give hundreds of thousands.

Good point as I once asked Donald Trump how much he personally gave to the Wharton School. He said "I'll match you dollar for dollar." What a joke. When I asked him that question back in 1987 he had up to that point given nothing.

[Tom]

How long ago did perch first appear?

[boxcar]

Good point as I once asked Donald Trump how much he personally gave to the Wharton School. He said "I'll match you dollar for dollar." What a joke. When I asked him that question is 1987 he had up to that point given nothing.

Nice evasive answer he gave. My retort back to him would have been, "You don't hear too well either, do you?"

Boxcar

[hcap]

How long ago did perch first appear?Way way before orangutans

[NJ Stinks]

You kill me. That's why repubs pushed the civil rights bill thru congress


That's a nice fairy tale. It just so happens that Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party when the civil rights law passed. Here's a sample article from The Lexington NC Dispatch on July 22, 1964. The title of this article is: Southern Democrats Start Defecting To Republicans". The first paragraph stated:

Dissident Southern Democrats, unhappy with the Johnson administration and the new civil rights law, have started defecting to the GOP in what promises to become a major problem for the Democratic party in the approaching presidential campaign.

The entire article can be found on page 11 in the link below:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Itmi1h0dExoC&dat=19640722&printsec=frontpage

I'm sure this is not news to you. Or have you never asked yourself why Southern Democrats suddenly became Republicans in the 1960's? :rolleyes:

Republicans taking credit for the civil rights acts is almost as believable as Republicans taking credit for the healthcare bill. I'm sure Republicans would have got around to it someday. The million dollar question is when.

For the record, all you have to do is count the votes:

It's very deceptive to say the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 had "much more Republican support than Democratic support." In the House of Representatives, the final vote for passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964 was 290 to 130. Of the "yea" votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans.
In the Senate, 46 of the 67 Democrats supported the bill; on the Republican side, 27 of 33 Republican Senators supported the bill.
Democrats had historically large majorities in Congress, as you can tell: In the House, 259 members to 176 Republicans. In the Senate, 67 to 33.
If you use strictly total numbers, more Democrats supported the measure than did Republicans. If you use percentage as a measurement, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the bill than did Democrats:
--In the House, 80 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats supported the measure.
--In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Democrats supported the bill.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2009m12d8-Harry-Reid-and-setting-the-record-straight-on-civil-rights

[Lefty]

The fact, that you so blithely ignore is: the civil rights bill would not have passed without Republican support. ALGORES father voted against it.

[boxcar]

That's a nice fairy tale. It just so happens that Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party when the civil rights law passed. Here's a sample article from The Lexington NC Dispatch on July 22, 1964. The title of this article is: Southern Democrats Start Defecting To Republicans". The first paragraph stated:

Dissident Southern Democrats, unhappy with the Johnson administration and the new civil rights law, have started defecting to the GOP in what promises to become a major problem for the Democratic party in the approaching presidential campaign.

The entire article can be found on page 11 in the link below:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Itmi1h0dExoC&dat=19640722&printsec=frontpage

I'm sure this is not news to you. Or have you never asked yourself why Southern Democrats suddenly became Republicans in the 1960's? :rolleyes:

Republicans taking credit for the civil rights acts is almost as believable as Republicans taking credit for the healthcare bill. I'm sure Republicans would have got around to it someday. The million dollar question is when.

For the record, all you have to do is count the votes:

It's very deceptive to say the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 had "much more Republican support than Democratic support." In the House of Representatives, the final vote for passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964 was 290 to 130. Of the "yea" votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans.
In the Senate, 46 of the 67 Democrats supported the bill; on the Republican side, 27 of 33 Republican Senators supported the bill.
Democrats had historically large majorities in Congress, as you can tell: In the House, 259 members to 176 Republicans. In the Senate, 67 to 33.
If you use strictly total numbers, more Democrats supported the measure than did Republicans. If you use percentage as a measurement, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the bill than did Democrats:
--In the House, 80 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats supported the measure.
--In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Democrats supported the bill.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2009m12d8-Harry-Reid-and-setting-the-record-straight-on-civil-rights

Another lib whose mouth can't catch up to his brain! And who loves talking out of both sides of his mouth at one time. :bang: :bang:

The percentages are more meaningful here since by your own admission both the House and Senate had large Democrat majorities. The Dems had a golden opportunity to shine if they had supported the Act much stronger than they did. Relatively speaking, it was weak support compared to the number of votes of the minority Republicans.

Let's put this in perspective a little -- in terms you'd better understand. Let's say a HS senior class has 40 kids who all need jobs. 10 of the kids are black.
A month after everyone started looking, 25 of the the white kids either found jobs or had offers, but none of the black kids had either. So, 83% of the white kids did okay for themselves. But 100% of the black students batted 1.000 in the unemployment and no prospects departments. Libs like yourself would not hesitate at all to point to the rampant discrimination that must be taking place, pointing to the dismal 100% who failed -- even though, there were only 10 black kids involved. :rolleyes:

Be sure to let me know if you have enjoyed this teachable moment.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

The fact, that you so blithely ignore is: the civil rights bill would not have passed without Republican support. ALGORES father voted against it.

I just figured Zippy Chippy deserved the facts - as opposed to Ralph's fractured fairy tale. No Lyndon Johnson and no liberal Democrats equals no civil rights laws. Correct that statement if you can, Lefty.

[BlueShoe]

Joe Biden is worth a hell of lot less than Dick Cheney or George Bush.
You nailed it. Should have added in more ways than one, though.

[Lefty]

stinks, you don't know that to be a fact; pure conjecture.

[hazzardm]

2 things are bad about this post.

A. I'm 35 and asking this.
B. I'm coming to PA over Google.

I don't know politics and will never understand how you can be anything other than independent. I could like a Rep one election and like a Democrat the next election.

My girlfriends father hates Obama, loves GW, hates olberman, loves bill oreilly. Asked him to put CNN on and said "I only watch fox news"

Someone just told me that is a Rep station.

I don't understand how reps automatically hate every dem and so forth. What is the maindifference. History was always my worst subject.

Republicans like their money, Dems like other peoples money, they both like getting elected at any cost.

[boxcar]

Republicans like their money, Dems like other peoples money, they both like getting elected at any cost.

Given that definition, I would say the Repugs are certainly the party of far lesser evil. At least I wouldn't have to worry very often about them picking my pockets, will I?

Boxcar

[hazzardm]

Given that definition, I would say the Repugs are certainly the party of far lesser evil. At least I wouldn't have to worry very often about them picking my pockets, will I?

Boxcar

Mostly agree, except a scant few Dems who seem honest in their desire to help the unfortunate. I find repubs can squeeze their nickels a bit too hard at times.

[Tom]

Dems who want to help other people:

1. Santa Claus
2. Easter Bunny

[boxcar]

Mostly agree, except a scant few Dems who seem honest in their desire to help the unfortunate. I find repubs can squeeze their nickels a bit too hard at times.

It's NOT their nickels they're squeezing. It's ours. And that's a good thing! I tend to live well within my means and try to be a good steward with all of which God has blessed me . Congress should only emulate the Boxcars in the world. ;)

Boxcar

[Lefty]

The nickels need to be squeezed even harder. Surprise surprise, Obama kept info from the CBO during the Health Care vote and now the CBO says the deficit will rise 115 billion. We need some nickel squeezing repubs to stop all this nonsense.

[Buckeye]

That's a nice fairy tale. It just so happens that Southern Democrats switched to the Republican party when the civil rights law passed. Here's a sample article from The Lexington NC Dispatch on July 22, 1964. The title of this article is: Southern Democrats Start Defecting To Republicans". The first paragraph stated:

Dissident Southern Democrats, unhappy with the Johnson administration and the new civil rights law, have started defecting to the GOP in what promises to become a major problem for the Democratic party in the approaching presidential campaign.

The entire article can be found on page 11 in the link below:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=Itmi1h0dExoC&dat=19640722&printsec=frontpage

I'm sure this is not news to you. Or have you never asked yourself why Southern Democrats suddenly became Republicans in the 1960's? :rolleyes:

Republicans taking credit for the civil rights acts is almost as believable as Republicans taking credit for the healthcare bill. I'm sure Republicans would have got around to it someday. The million dollar question is when.

For the record, all you have to do is count the votes:

It's very deceptive to say the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 had "much more Republican support than Democratic support." In the House of Representatives, the final vote for passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964 was 290 to 130. Of the "yea" votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans.
In the Senate, 46 of the 67 Democrats supported the bill; on the Republican side, 27 of 33 Republican Senators supported the bill.
Democrats had historically large majorities in Congress, as you can tell: In the House, 259 members to 176 Republicans. In the Senate, 67 to 33.
If you use strictly total numbers, more Democrats supported the measure than did Republicans. If you use percentage as a measurement, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the bill than did Democrats:
--In the House, 80 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats supported the measure.
--In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Democrats supported the bill.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2009m12d8-Harry-Reid-and-setting-the-record-straight-on-civil-rights

I'll tell you what Republicans can take credit for, how bout ending Slavery. Not good enough for you!