Conservatism: Correcting the Ignorant

[PoliticalChic]

Why did Barry Goldwater vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

"Democrats today castigate Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as anti-black. However a review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist. Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.

Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm" Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association.



And, the clearest indication of how wrong your suggestion is, is the name of the thank-ee under your post.

Goldwater voted against it because he thought it was unconstitutional.

He therefore believed that the federal government did not have the right to take away the RIGHT of the states to segregate based on race.

He therefore believed that the states did in fact have the RIGHT to segregate.The constitutional right.

Now go back to my statement, which again you quote without attribution:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Goldwater, when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was doing so in agreement with the above statement.

Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?

1. Now, look at you! Sticking your little fingers in your ears (they probably meet), squeeze your little eyes shut- and pretend that the parts of the post that sever your attempt to indict Senator Goldwater as a flaming racist, don’t exist!

2. Here, again: "Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax."

Well, then...since here is proof that racism was not a motivator of the good Senator....
what could possibly explain his vote?

Principles.
A love the laws that memorialized the greatness of America: the Constitution.
Why would that be beyond your ken?



3. "Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?"

Well...let's examine your presumptions about Johnson, and about Goldwater.

a. Prior to 1957, Johnson “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert A. Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv .

That the Liberal, the Democrat you mean?


b. The LBJ who made certain of the following: "To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock…today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying.
See Charles A. Murray, “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.”

That's your guy?


c. Not this guy: Senator Goldwater, “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”
Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
What were LBJ's beliefs when he thwarted the earlier Civil Rights acts....that would have been passed under Republicans?


d. Consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes:

“for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.




Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, who honored the Constitution, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the racist liberals who placed party politics above the deleterious effects the legislation has had on blacks?



In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why did Barry Goldwater vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I don't know for sure. Why did Albert Gore Sr.?

He was a conservative southern Democrat. He probably voted against it because he agreed with the statement referred to in the OP.

The great Liberal lie.

And the dumbest accept it. Raise your paw.

1. The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.

2. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives…except for one. And they were not conservative.

a. Let's review the record.

b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.

c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy

d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU

e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist

f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist

g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War

h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist

i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter

j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs

k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, …but supported Clarence Thomas’ nomination

l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs

m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR’s New Deal

n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork’s nomination

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats….Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him.




3. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat,” not “Dixiecan.” They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.

a. The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: “Segregation Forever!” Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association


b. While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.

c. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, ‘Bull’ Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc.....Democrats


The Democrat Party....the party of slavery, segregation, secularization and sedition.

 

[rdean]

Conservatives ARE the "ignorant".

So says any reputable data.

 

[hunarcy]

Goldwater voted against it because he thought it was unconstitutional.

He therefore believed that the federal government did not have the right to take away the RIGHT of the states to segregate based on race.

He therefore believed that the states did in fact have the RIGHT to segregate.The constitutional right.

Now go back to my statement, which again you quote without attribution:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Goldwater, when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was doing so in agreement with the above statement.

Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?

The problem is that you are trying to draw a false parrallel. According to YOUR statement, "Goldwater voted against it because he thought it was unconstitutional." not because he supported the idea of segregation. To prove your position, you have to find a statement where he supported segregation...he may have made such statements, I don't know. That's up to you to find.

Good luck.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservatives ARE the "ignorant".

So says any reputable data.

I believe I'll take that from whence it comes.

If brains were bird droppings, you'd have a clean cage.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

Right: Corporations run the US.
Left: Big Government run Corporations that run the US.

American Citizen: Debt and Wage Slave.

All of whom are controlled by the Banks!

Is brilliant plan no?

That's the most succinct description on here to date. Part of a masters degree in polysci in a few words. You buried miles of psychobabble in just four short sentences.

 

[Borillar]

On several occasions my 'Anonymous Muse' has posted such ignorant blather that 'it' has inspired me to OP corrections and remediations.

They are so inane that, for 'it's' own good I have redacted the name of this individual

Here's an example:
"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"




And, so...a primer on conservatism:


1. This begins with the idea that the principles of conservatism hold the key to both unlimited opportunity for individual Americans, and the realization of our country’s boundless potential.

2. The Founders set out to create a new system of government, one unlike any the world had yet seen. It relies on individual liberty, and imposes positive limitations on government written into the Constitution.

3. But a definition of conservatism might better be understood by considering the opposite ideology, whether called liberal or progressive or leftism, it centers on the belief that our nation’s foundational principles no longer apply, and that a vast expansion of government, unrestricted in power, is a natural evolution. This 'evolution' invests the collective, rather than the individual, with primacy. This is both false, and dangerous.

a. Said expansion necessitates a reduction in the rights of individuals.

b. The unspoken corollary of said expansion of government is the degree of taxation, which deprives individuals of their right to make decisions for themselves. This ends the creativity, innovation, and individual determination which once propelled our nation to greatness.

c. David Mamet wrote: In the free market, every man, woman and child is scheming to find a better way to make a product or service that will make a fortune!






4. Liberalis/progressivism/Leftism allows for- and indeed facilitates- government intrusion into homes, schools, businesses, and places of worship. The limited federal government envisioned by Madison now assumes the roles of mass employer, public contractor, commercial bank, financial investor, farmer, industrialist, retirement adviser, healthcare provider, and parent- none of which are enumerated in the Constitution.

5. Conservatism proclaims that the only right and proper function of our government is to secure, promote, and protect the individual liberties of the citizen.


6. Any philosophy which repudiates the primacy of the individual in favor of the tyranny of the collective will deny our nation true progress.

7. Too many government actions are seemingly based on the premise that each American cannot be trusted to exercise rights on his or her own.

8. A government guided by the sole purpose of protecting individual freedoms is both morally superior to other forms of government, and also steward over a more prosperous, diverse and happy society than can be achieved under a form of government guided by any other principle.





9. There must be a restoration of the fundamental faith in man that led our founders to hold up the idea of individual liberty with such reverence.

10. Whether or not these principles, and such a government, can be reinstituted in the face of the Left’s control of media and the education system, as well as the bribery of give-aways and take-aways, is not the question.

The fight is worth fighting, win or lose.

Largely from “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler & John Amble

In the first place, I'd disagree with your definition of liberalism/progressivism.

In the second, I'd point out that modern-day "conservatism" is much more concerned with the rights of global corporations than it is with individual liberties. In fact, if left to their own devices, they would bury individual liberty under the rights of corporations totally.

"Corporations are people, my friend".

 

[there4eyeM]

I hope Bork is not another one of your heros, 'Chic.

"Say it ain't so!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

I hope Bork is not another one of your heros, 'Chic.

"Say it ain't so!"

If this is the usual pattern, then you haven't read any of his work.
You let others do your thinking for you?

If true...you should be ashamed of yourself.


BTW...."Slouching Towards Gomorrah" is one the best books I've read.

 

[there4eyeM]

I hope Bork is not another one of your heros, 'Chic.

"Say it ain't so!"

If this is the usual pattern, then you haven't read any of his work.
You let others do your thinking for you?

If true...you should be ashamed of yourself.


BTW...."Slouching Toward Gomorrah" is one the best books I've read.

No one does my thinking for me.
I remember this slimy dog from the Nixon days, when two sincere men far his better refused to do Nixon's bidding in firing Cox. This 'character' was only too happy to carry out his masters contemptuous orders in order to obtain high position.
Thank goodness he never became Supreme Court judge as Ronnie proposed (another mark of who that president really was, too).

 

[PoliticalChic]

I hope Bork is not another one of your heros, 'Chic.

"Say it ain't so!"

If this is the usual pattern, then you haven't read any of his work.
You let others do your thinking for you?

If true...you should be ashamed of yourself.


BTW...."Slouching Toward Gomorrah" is one the best books I've read.

No one does my thinking for me.
I remember this slimy dog from the Nixon days, when two sincere men far his better refused to do Nixon's bidding in firing Cox. This 'character' was only too happy to carry out his masters contemptuous orders in order to obtain high position.
Thank goodness he never became Supreme Court judge as Ronnie proposed (another mark of who that president really was, too).

Typical Liberal response.

What's slimy is your pretending to ignore the question of whether or not you've studied any of his work.

You haven't.

So....you do let others do your thinking for you.

You haven't commented on the earlier Bork statement. Let me reprise same:

Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.


See any problem there....or do you need MSNBC to tell you what to believe about it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Democrats today castigate Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as anti-black. However a review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist. Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.

Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm" Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association.



And, the clearest indication of how wrong your suggestion is, is the name of the thank-ee under your post.

Goldwater voted against it because he thought it was unconstitutional.

He therefore believed that the federal government did not have the right to take away the RIGHT of the states to segregate based on race.

He therefore believed that the states did in fact have the RIGHT to segregate.The constitutional right.

Now go back to my statement, which again you quote without attribution:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Goldwater, when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was doing so in agreement with the above statement.

Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?

1. Now, look at you! Sticking your little fingers in your ears (they probably meet), squeeze your little eyes shut- and pretend that the parts of the post that sever your attempt to indict Senator Goldwater as a flaming racist, don’t exist!

2. Here, again: "Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax."

Well, then...since here is proof that racism was not a motivator of the good Senator....
what could possibly explain his vote?

Principles.
A love the laws that memorialized the greatness of America: the Constitution.
Why would that be beyond your ken?



3. "Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?"

Well...let's examine your presumptions about Johnson, and about Goldwater.

a. Prior to 1957, Johnson “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert A. Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv .

That the Liberal, the Democrat you mean?


b. The LBJ who made certain of the following: "To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock…today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying.
See Charles A. Murray, “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.”

That's your guy?


c. Not this guy: Senator Goldwater, “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”
Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
What were LBJ's beliefs when he thwarted the earlier Civil Rights acts....that would have been passed under Republicans?


d. Consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes:

“for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.




Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, who honored the Constitution, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the racist liberals who placed party politics above the deleterious effects the legislation has had on blacks?



In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

You refuse to address what I said which means you can't.

Goldwater defended the right of states to allow segregation by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now tell us if he was right or wrong to vote against it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know for sure. Why did Albert Gore Sr.?

He was a conservative southern Democrat. He probably voted against it because he agreed with the statement referred to in the OP.

The great Liberal lie.

And the dumbest accept it. Raise your paw.

1. The media intentionally hides the civil rights records of lifelong, liberal Democrats to make it look as if it was the Republican Party that was the party of segregation and racial discrimination.

2. The most important points: all the segregationists in the Senate were Democrats, and remained same for the rest of their lives…except for one. And they were not conservative.

a. Let's review the record.

b. Strom Thurmond became a Republican, albeit 16 years later. Lets see how many of the 12 in the Senate were conservative.

c. Senator Harry Byrd, staunch opponent of anti-communist McCarthy

d. Senator Robert Byrd, proabortion, opposed Gulf Wars, supported ERA, high grades from NARAL and ACLU

e. Senator Allen Ellender, McCarthy opponent, pacifist

f. Senator Sam Ervin, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, Nixon antagonist

g. Senator Albert Gore, Sr., McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War

h. Senator James Eastland, strong anti-communist

i. Senator Wm. Fulbright, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big UN supporter

j. Senator Walter F. George, supported TVA, and Great Society programs

k. Senator Ernest Hollings, initiated federal food stamp program, …but supported Clarence Thomas’ nomination

l. Senator Russell Long, led the campaign for Great Society programs

m. Senator Richard Russell, McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, supported FDR’s New Deal

n. Senator John Stennis, McCarthy opponent, opposed Robert Bork’s nomination

Notice how segregationist positions went hand-in-hand with opposition to McCarthy? Not all Democrats….Robert Kennedy worked for McCarthy, and Senator John F. Kenned refused to censure him.




3. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran as a “Dixiecrat,” not “Dixiecan.” They were segregations, and an offshoot of the Democrat Party. And they remained Democrats.

a. The so-called “Dixiecrats” remained Democrats and did not migrate to the Republican Party. The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, formed a third party, the State’s Rights Democratic Party with the slogan: “Segregation Forever!” Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections. Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association


b. While all Democrats weren’t segregationists, all segregationists were Democrats.

c. Klan members and racists including Hugo Black, George Wallace, ‘Bull’ Connor, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc.....Democrats


The Democrat Party....the party of slavery, segregation, secularization and sedition.

You were by definition a conservative on segregation if you supported the rights of states to allow it.

Conservative coalition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In the United States, the conservative coalition was an unofficial Congressional coalition bringing together the conservative majority of the Republican Party and the conservative, mostly Southern, wing of the Democratic Party. It was dominant in Congress from 1937 to 1963 and remained a political force until the mid-1980s, eventually dying out in the 1990s.

Do you deny the existence of the above?

Conservative coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[there4eyeM]

If this is the usual pattern, then you haven't read any of his work.
You let others do your thinking for you?

If true...you should be ashamed of yourself.


BTW...."Slouching Toward Gomorrah" is one the best books I've read.

No one does my thinking for me.
I remember this slimy dog from the Nixon days, when two sincere men far his better refused to do Nixon's bidding in firing Cox. This 'character' was only too happy to carry out his masters contemptuous orders in order to obtain high position.
Thank goodness he never became Supreme Court judge as Ronnie proposed (another mark of who that president really was, too).

Typical Liberal response.

What's slimy is your pretending to ignore the question of whether or not you've studied any of his work.

You haven't.

So....you do let others do your thinking for you.

You haven't commented on the earlier Bork statement. Let me reprise same:

Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.


See any problem there....or do you need MSNBC to tell you what to believe about it?

It's possible someone who thinks of her/himself as a 'liberal' might think the same way. I can't speak for such people. I do enough of my own thinking to not immediately throw others into a class simply out of disagreement. If you want to go by things this hypocritical lackey wrote, go ahead. I go by what I witnessed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Democrats today castigate Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as anti-black. However a review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist. Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.

Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwaterspeech.htm" Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association.



And, the clearest indication of how wrong your suggestion is, is the name of the thank-ee under your post.

Goldwater voted against it because he thought it was unconstitutional.

He therefore believed that the federal government did not have the right to take away the RIGHT of the states to segregate based on race.

He therefore believed that the states did in fact have the RIGHT to segregate.The constitutional right.

Now go back to my statement, which again you quote without attribution:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Goldwater, when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was doing so in agreement with the above statement.

Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?

1. Now, look at you! Sticking your little fingers in your ears (they probably meet), squeeze your little eyes shut- and pretend that the parts of the post that sever your attempt to indict Senator Goldwater as a flaming racist, don’t exist!

2. Here, again: "Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax."

Well, then...since here is proof that racism was not a motivator of the good Senator....
what could possibly explain his vote?

Principles.
A love the laws that memorialized the greatness of America: the Constitution.
Why would that be beyond your ken?



3. "Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?"

Well...let's examine your presumptions about Johnson, and about Goldwater.

a. Prior to 1957, Johnson “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert A. Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv .

That the Liberal, the Democrat you mean?


b. The LBJ who made certain of the following: "To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock…today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying.
See Charles A. Murray, “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.”

That's your guy?


c. Not this guy: Senator Goldwater, “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”
Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
What were LBJ's beliefs when he thwarted the earlier Civil Rights acts....that would have been passed under Republicans?


d. Consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes:

“for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.




Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, who honored the Constitution, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the racist liberals who placed party politics above the deleterious effects the legislation has had on blacks?



In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a voting rights act, not a segregation act.

Stick to your own topic.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

If this is the usual pattern, then you haven't read any of his work.
You let others do your thinking for you?

If true...you should be ashamed of yourself.


BTW...."Slouching Toward Gomorrah" is one the best books I've read.

No one does my thinking for me.
I remember this slimy dog from the Nixon days, when two sincere men far his better refused to do Nixon's bidding in firing Cox. This 'character' was only too happy to carry out his masters contemptuous orders in order to obtain high position.
Thank goodness he never became Supreme Court judge as Ronnie proposed (another mark of who that president really was, too).

Typical Liberal response.

What's slimy is your pretending to ignore the question of whether or not you've studied any of his work.

You haven't.

So....you do let others do your thinking for you.

You haven't commented on the earlier Bork statement. Let me reprise same:

Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.


See any problem there....or do you need MSNBC to tell you what to believe about it?

Your cause, trying to keep the GOP alive on a pacemaker, is futile, despite the endless posts of hackery. Hasten the day when there are no more Democratic or Republican parties and we get parties who really represent the people.

 

[Ernie S.]

Who here has heard many many conservatives on this forum say that they believe a business, such as a restaurant, should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose,

thus including therein the right to refuse to serve people of color if that's their choice?

Every one of those people fall into the category I referred to in the statement PC quotes in her OP.

How many conservatives here have you ever heard tell the above conservatives they were WRONG??

eh?

Let's see if I can 'splain it to you. I believe that a restaurant should have the right to refuse service to anyone they chose. I do not, personally believe they should.
I believe that any business who excludes blacks, Hispanics or homosexuals should post a sign prominent at their entrance so I can decide not to eat there in protest of their policy.
We are going to have bigots. We will have racist whites, and we will have racist blacks, but we won't have too many successful businesses that exclude either one.
You see, with freedom, comes consequences.

Okay, so you agree with the original statement I made that PC seems to think I was wrong about.

Damned if I know. I doubt strongly if I would agree with much more than "The sky is blue." coming from you and I don't care enough to refer back. Perhaps you could restate your original statement.

 

[Ernie S.]

Conservatives ARE the "ignorant".

So says any reputable data.

Your data is only 6% reliable, at best.

 

[Ernie S.]

Goldwater voted against it because he thought it was unconstitutional.

He therefore believed that the federal government did not have the right to take away the RIGHT of the states to segregate based on race.

He therefore believed that the states did in fact have the RIGHT to segregate.The constitutional right.

Now go back to my statement, which again you quote without attribution:

"Most conservatives support the right of states to segregate based on race don't they?"

Goldwater, when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was doing so in agreement with the above statement.

Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?

1. Now, look at you! Sticking your little fingers in your ears (they probably meet), squeeze your little eyes shut- and pretend that the parts of the post that sever your attempt to indict Senator Goldwater as a flaming racist, don’t exist!

2. Here, again: "Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax."

Well, then...since here is proof that racism was not a motivator of the good Senator....
what could possibly explain his vote?

Principles.
A love the laws that memorialized the greatness of America: the Constitution.
Why would that be beyond your ken?



3. "Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, and thus agree with the statement I made, or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the liberals who passed the Civil Rights Act?"

Well...let's examine your presumptions about Johnson, and about Goldwater.

a. Prior to 1957, Johnson “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert A. Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv .

That the Liberal, the Democrat you mean?


b. The LBJ who made certain of the following: "To progressives, loosening and expanding the eligibility to any woman living alone with children, benefitted huge groups of voters. No matter that it incentivized out-of-wedlock births, and single motherhood, reinforcing the same negative behaviors that caused poverty in the first place. (in 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock…today? Around 40 %). Millions of women could be better off financially by not marrying.
See Charles A. Murray, “Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980.”

That's your guy?


c. Not this guy: Senator Goldwater, “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”
Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
What were LBJ's beliefs when he thwarted the earlier Civil Rights acts....that would have been passed under Republicans?


d. Consider that even John F. Kennedy, Jr., and his family, staunch political opponents of Barry Goldwater, recognize the value of his conservative assertions. Robert F, Kennedy, Jr., in his afterward to Goldwater’s book, writes:

“for Goldwater, the purpose of government was to foster societies where human potential could flourish. Conservatism, he explains in [his] book, is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for the individual that is consistent with the maintenance of the social order.” See “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Goldwater, p. 123-124.




Do you agree with Goldwater, the Father of Modern Conservatism, who honored the Constitution, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or do you agree with Lyndon Johnson and the racist liberals who placed party politics above the deleterious effects the legislation has had on blacks?



In short....who was the racist....LBJ or Goldwater?

You refuse to address what I said which means you can't.

Goldwater defended the right of states to allow segregation by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Now tell us if he was right or wrong to vote against it.

He was right to vote against it for the reason he expressed. He did not defend the right of states to allow segregation. He defended the right of individuals to be assholes. You should adopt him as your patron Saint.

 

[Erand7899]

Liberty has its responsibilities, also. For it to be genuinely present, it requires educated, informed citizens.

Apparently, modern day "conservatism" does not. All it requires is gullibility based upon fear and an absolute lack of critical thinking.

Apparently, the only thing you know about modern day conservatism is what your betters have told you.

Your use of the phrase "critical thinking", pretty well indicates that you have been well indoctrinated into your liberal/socialist thought processes. The only people I have seen use that term are the members of the loony left.