Ask a pirate for his AK, Gid.

(shrug) a firestick's a firestick!

And.. use some of that buffalo instead of human.

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have passed without broad REPUBLICAN support. That's not theory; it's provable FACT.

see how you are spinning the facts?

of course to pass anything and avoid dead-lock in the Senate you always need support from the other party. and who was in office in 1964? and before that?

and I am the one who needs to learn History?!!!!!!!

listen Gid. spinning doesnt work with me. Unfortunately it works .... a lot with others. not me. Ok?

these were put in place to counter the minimum wage that started at the same time

Ohh really?

The Dem's and the supreme court didnt force that?

Rosa Park didnt happen? and Brown Vs Dept of Education didn't happen?

all of it was to counter Min. wage? of course it was ...... the virtual world you guys live in is full with amazing stuff.

see how you are spinning the facts?

That is not spin.  It is fact.  Best you educate yourself before making a fool of yourself again.

no the illegal immigrant laws were to counter min. wage. so that the border states could keep paying what they were paying because they couldn't afford to pay more.

No, I'm not spinning the facts, TA. READ YOUR HISTORY! I CAN'T DO IT FOR YOU!

The FACTS are that the Democratic party was DEEPLY split over the Act. So much so that it threatened to divide the party. The VAST MAJORITY of the votes against the act were DEMOCRAT votes. Oh, but don't take MY word on this. Do the research yourself! I've already blogged on this subject, I've already shown the stats, TA. I don't need to re-do this to PROVE historical FACT to you.

The truth is, you and others on the left have wrongly castigated the GOP for blocking Civil Rights, when it was your OWN party that stood in the schoolhouse door.

sorry this is supposed to read so that the farmers of the border states. could keep paying what they were paying because they couldn' afford to pay the min. wage.

Now, if you want to be taken even partially seriously, you would instead list the causes of the situations you listed, and how they would be caused by who was in the whitehouse.

So leadership and who in the white house don't matter?

things happen for lots of reasons. the fact that who was in the WH either didnt control the situations or did intiate actions that lead to these results was all i wanted to highlight. You can't escape these facts. spin it all you want. it is still there for all to see .... if anyone wants to see.

You need a detailed sequence of events which lead from the WH to each incident? short of that, you cant comprehend the connection? and you need that in a blog? ok , here is one example:

Early in Reagan's WH the tax cuts gave a huge incentive to build new plants and not maintain or upgrade existing ones. that is documented in Reagan's historical tax cuts.

if you were a CEO and you will get 20% Tax Credit if you build new plant while getting nothing other than regular Busn expenses for maint. or upgrade activities and you have $ 100 million to spend, where would you allocate most of that money?

Sure enough, major chem plants and refinaries cut the maint and upgrade budgets and started building new plants in Mexico and Canada. I was there and lived it on the design floors and on the plant floors. even maint supplies in the stock rooms were cut to divert capital to new plants. .

ON TOP OF THAT : OSHA inspectors were out of sight in a flash. ...... you think they just got lazy?????!!!!!

and what happened to those plants and refinaries few years after that?

chem plants and refinaries leaks, explosions andeventual closings.

enought details for you?

so unless you get that kind of details you cant accept an obvious trend? ...... i thought you guys are smart and are able to understand it on the fly. what happened? selective intelligence or what?

The FACTS are that the Democratic party was DEEPLY split over the Act.

Doesnt that prove my point? The WH worked to get it passed. they got enought votes from BOTH parites to get it done. That is leadership and that is what presidents are supposed to do. at the time, there were many republicans i admired and still do. Unfortunately not many of them still exist.

So leadership and who in the white house don't matter?

It depends upon the context, does it not?  Are you saying that Bush was the reason the Chargers lost the superbowl?  Your examples are just as inane.  Even more so since you are saying that pirates cause global warming (causality).

There were wars, famine, deaths, and murders.  Bush responsible for all of them as well? Must be according to your and Mickey moron's 6 degrees of causality.

Start Pirating today, and lower the global temperature.  Just ask TA for proof of it.

Did you know that during the 90s, canibalism increased world wide?  Must have been Clinton's fault.  Only a fool could not help but see the relationship.

"so unless you get that kind of details you cant accept an obvious trend? ...... i thought you guys are smart and are able to understand it on the fly. what happened? selective intelligence or what?"

No, TA. The GOP had been supporting civil righhts for years.

Johnson was a crook, not a leader.

Look, I agree the GOP is incompetent. All I'm asking you to concede is that the DNC is equally incompetent. We don't get real change until we take a hard look even at the guys we LIKE, TA.

The truth is, you and others on the left have wrongly castigated the GOP for blocking Civil Rights, when it was your OWN party that stood in the schoolhouse door.

Did i ever say that? at the time many Dem and Rep. were against it. and that is exactly my point . The WH was able to work through that huge problem and get enough votes.

But why are we talking about that? I didnt accuse the GOP of obstructing the civil-rights. The article was about something i noticed : whenever GOP get control we get more problems than when Dems get control. I said it could be just bad luck. but i think it is both: by design and by bad luck.