Spiderman, the left can't leave it alone...black actress won't enter National Monument, slavery....

[Syriusly]

Quote from the man who 2aguy calls a fool- but whom the rest of America calls a Civil Rights hero.
View attachment 139919

Why does 2aguy consider Goldwater to be a Civil Rights hero- but African Americans don't.

For the same reason- Goldwater voted against the pivotal Civil Rights legislation of the 20th century.

This is who King supported....

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.



This is who King voted against......

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics



Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.


NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.


"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."


So tell us why King voted for the racist and not the actual Civil Rights Hero.....

LOLOLOL

You're actually criticizing Martin Luther King Jr. for supporting the president who delivered civil rights for blacks.



You really can't get any dumber. You've reached your apex.

He delivered more power to the federal government....and fought against Civil Rights for blacks his entire career..

I can't even tell if this confusing statement is 2aguy attacking Martin Luther King Jr.- or LBJ.

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off.

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

 

[2aguy]

This is who King supported....

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.



This is who King voted against......

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics



Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.


NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.


"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."


So tell us why King voted for the racist and not the actual Civil Rights Hero.....

LOLOLOL

You're actually criticizing Martin Luther King Jr. for supporting the president who delivered civil rights for blacks.



You really can't get any dumber. You've reached your apex.

He delivered more power to the federal government....and fought against Civil Rights for blacks his entire career..

I can't even tell if this confusing statement is 2aguy attacking Martin Luther King Jr.- or LBJ.

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off.

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

Wow....you really are stupid.......Goldwater always fought for Civil Rights...of all people....for johnson...it was a political trick....

here, since you are so fucking stupid.....I guess you have to read the truth again...

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.
=============

Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20]

Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.
---
NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There


As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."

 

[2aguy]

This is who King supported....

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.



This is who King voted against......

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics



Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.


NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.


"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."


So tell us why King voted for the racist and not the actual Civil Rights Hero.....

LOLOLOL

You're actually criticizing Martin Luther King Jr. for supporting the president who delivered civil rights for blacks.



You really can't get any dumber. You've reached your apex.

He delivered more power to the federal government....and fought against Civil Rights for blacks his entire career..

I can't even tell if this confusing statement is 2aguy attacking Martin Luther King Jr.- or LBJ.

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off.

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

Since you are a stupid human being...here is some more on the Civil Rights Hero Barry Goldwater....

Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights



More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

 

[2aguy]

This is who King supported....

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.



This is who King voted against......

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics



Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.


NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.


"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."


So tell us why King voted for the racist and not the actual Civil Rights Hero.....

LOLOLOL

You're actually criticizing Martin Luther King Jr. for supporting the president who delivered civil rights for blacks.



You really can't get any dumber. You've reached your apex.

He delivered more power to the federal government....and fought against Civil Rights for blacks his entire career..

I can't even tell if this confusing statement is 2aguy attacking Martin Luther King Jr.- or LBJ.

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off.

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

And johnson, the racist....also knew this would happen...

Many would argue that the advent of the Great Society initiates the decline of the Black family. What Blacks gained from Civil Rights legislation and government largess, they lost in individual liberty and fidelity. They became more dependent on government programs; and less dependent on their own ability to improve themselves by the work of their own hands, and the sweat of their brow. If you read Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservativeyou’ll see that he understood this dynamic [see my article Conservatism vs The Borg (liberalism)].

 

[2aguy]

This is who King supported....

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.



This is who King voted against......

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics



Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.


NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.


"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."


So tell us why King voted for the racist and not the actual Civil Rights Hero.....

LOLOLOL

You're actually criticizing Martin Luther King Jr. for supporting the president who delivered civil rights for blacks.



You really can't get any dumber. You've reached your apex.

He delivered more power to the federal government....and fought against Civil Rights for blacks his entire career..

I can't even tell if this confusing statement is 2aguy attacking Martin Luther King Jr.- or LBJ.

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off.

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

Hey...shit bird........johnson was a racist....

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights

 

[2aguy]

This is who King supported....

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.



This is who King voted against......

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics



Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.

Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.

In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.

Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.


NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.


"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."


So tell us why King voted for the racist and not the actual Civil Rights Hero.....

LOLOLOL

You're actually criticizing Martin Luther King Jr. for supporting the president who delivered civil rights for blacks.



You really can't get any dumber. You've reached your apex.

He delivered more power to the federal government....and fought against Civil Rights for blacks his entire career..

I can't even tell if this confusing statement is 2aguy attacking Martin Luther King Jr.- or LBJ.

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off.

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

Goldwater .....suppored all the Civil Rights acts....and the 64 act except for those two provisions.......

Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork.

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights

 

[Syriusly]

Again.... blacks are smarter than you. They know it was 150 years when Democrats owned slaves. They also know they were racist southerners who are now mostly Republicans. That's why they're primarily Democrat now even though they they used to be primarily Republican.

Yes....you can tell voting for democrats has done a lot for blacks in this country......their out of wedlock birth rate is close to 70%....their education in democrat controlled schools sometimes reaches 50% graduation rates....the poverty, crime and murder rates...yes, voting for the racist democrat party and their racist policies has helped blacks in the United States.......

The racists in the south stayed with the democrat party, those who grew up, and didn't want to obsess about race became Republicans.....racism is the core of the democrat party, racists of all colors belong to the party, and their racist parties have destroyed minority communities throughout the United States....

Nope, Republicans control most of that. In the racist south, they control most governorships, state legislatures, U.S. Congressional seats, local school boards. The southern racists, who were once Democrats a long time ago, haven't changed their views on blacks, only their political party; which is now Republican. Because LBJ stabbed them in the back for supporting civil rights for blacks.

The South isn't racist..

Amazing isn't it?

From the beginning of the United States until 1964, the South was 'racist', but suddenly after 1964 Southerners were no longer racists(except of course Southern blacks)

Was there a massive migration that we missed?

Here you go asswipe......
]

'asswipe'- lol- what are you 13 years old?


A Republican propaganda piece?

Surely you can do better than that.

"At one time the Democrats were the racists of the south, while the kindly Republicans held the North- until the 1960's..."
"Prager U" Misleads, Then Ignores Modern History

The headline: “The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party,” accentuated with cartoonish images of a clansman and the stars and bars horizontally aligning with the Democratic Donkey- the imagery not too dissimilar from a slot machine missing on three different symbols.

But Prager U did indeed hit the jackpot here. For it’s hard enough for them to find a respectable university professor to voice an opinion to coincide with their mostly unfound and misleading political hackery, but to find one that is African-American, speaking about issues pertaining to the black community is the equivalent of hitting the Powerball after months of an unclaimed prize.

In watching the first four minutes of this almost six-minute clip, Professor Carol Swain is actually very accurate. In the distant past, the Democratic Party was the party of racism, defending the unconscionable act of owning slaves. Democrats largely resided in the south and were willing to go so far as to commit treason and split from the nation to form a confederacy to defend their “right” to continue to practice slave labor.

But from that point on, her commentary becomes misplaced and evasive:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Since it’s founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.”

I seem to remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being the creation of JFK (a Democrat), and then finished and implemented under LBJ (a Democrat). And as for Congress, the support for the legislation had nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with whether the congressmen represented the north or the south. This indisputable fact of voting correlation is one that she does not even acknowledge. Instead, she untruthfully affixes vote direction to political party:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Democratic Senator’s fillibusted for 75 days..”

The Senator’s who filibustered the legislation were Richard Russell (Georgia), Strom Thurmund (South Carolina), Robert Byrd (West Virginia) and Sam Ervin (North Carolina). Bringing the argument into the more modern era – those are all states that Republican’s enjoy comfortable dominance in. Those men who represented those states are appropriately referred to as “Dixiecrats”, and their constituency swung to the Republican Party during the late 1960’s when Democratic presidents created and passed the Civil Rights Act Of 1964- a swing that was solidified even further when Nixon decided to pander to the “states rights” racists in the south. These states have voted predominantly Republican since then.

Professor Swain’s quote: “..the only serious Congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. 80 percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill, less than 70 percent of Democrats did.”

Putting aside the fact that a little bit more than 10 percent separating the respective parties support of the legislation is hardly constitutes one side being fully supportive, and the other being the “serious Congressional opposition”, let’s move on to the her more egregious representation of vote correlation.

It is a completely misleading implication to state that the “yeas” and “nays” had any correlation whatsoever to political party. Her claim can be discarded just by looking at the actual vote tallies. The verified fact regarding the way in which a congressman voted has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the region they were representing. As the vote tallies show below, if you were in the south, you very likely opposed the legislation. If you were representing a northern state, you generally favored it with few exceptions. Whether you were a Democrat or Republican mattered little as seen by the voting tallies below for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by region:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 8-87 (7-93%)

Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)

Notice the actual fact of which you’d never be privy to in watching this Prager video – ” the “Northern Democrats” actually supported the bill in a larger proportion than the “Northern Republicans” in both chambers of Congress.

Perhaps most startling of all, there was not a single vote cast in favor of the legislation by southern Republicans by any of their 11 total representatives in both chambers.

What you see above is clear and undisputed – a strong correlation of how a congressmen voted can be drawn from the region they representation, with no correlation drawn from the political party they were affiliated with.

Perhaps a decade ago, a Conservative may have examined the above voting tally, showing that Professor Swain purposely made a completely erroneous correlation to promote a political ideology (I say purposely because she’s a history professor at Vanderbilt University- of course she’d be familiar with the fact that party representation of Congressmen had no correlation with how they voted). And now knowing that this video is propaganda not designed to inform and educate accurately, maybe they say to themselves:

“I’m not going to absorb any more information from this video clip, and will take future Prager U videos with a grain of salt, as it’s representation of the voting tally was completely misleading. Using my own analysis, I can easily see that there is little correlation in how members of the two political parties voted, but a very strong correlation based on the region they represented. This wasn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but a North vs. South issue.”

It doesn’t mean the reader should cease to have conservative principals. It simply means that they’ve utilized a bit of common sense and rationale to determine that the way the voting was represented in this clip was completely disingenuous. And then upon arriving at that conclusion, they make an educated decision to perhaps learn about this issue from a different source.

For this would benefit the Conservative party. It would create more informed, honest debate – absorbing information from reputable outlets to become better educated instead of mislead.

But today we have a president and his cabinet appointees, along with certain members of Congress who are insisting that 1 + 1 = 3 is completely acceptable. In this world, ideology trumps pragmatism, and rewrites and alternate portrayals of history are valid as long as there are people out there who want to believe in it. And if those who are paying attention, unabated by any ideological binders or pseudo-patriotism have the gall to question this obvious nonsense, we’re labeled as an outside infiltrating source full of fake convictions and one of “the others”.

Inexplicably, Professor Swain makes no attempt to address the state of race-relations of each political party as it pertains to the last 50 years of American history, other than to taint the modern Democratic party with broad generalizations that exist only in the deep caverns of the echo chamber that Rush Limbaugh carved out seemingly eons ago.

Although one would think perhaps the greatest amount of time should be spent on Nixon’s Southern Strategy, as it was a monumental sea change which has the single most bearing on where each party stands today on this issue, she instead chooses to wrap up the commentary.

At a certain point in the video, Swain informs all the students at Prager U of a racist comment that Lyndon B. Johnson “purportedly” said. Nothing like students garnering an extensive knowledge base on statements “purportedly” made. If Prager U is the alternative to a “liberal education,” than I’m more than proud to have been “liberally indoctrinated.”

Because in a fact-free environment, the word “purportedly” is free to exist anywhere and everywhere.

Let me conclude by allowing serious political players of the Republican Party to explain the”Southern Strategy” since Professor Swain decided to end her history lesson at around 1964. This are not statements “purportedly” made, but are actual verified statements from interviews.

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

-Kevin Philips, Richard Nixon political strategist

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Ni***r, ni***r, ni***r.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘ni***r’ as that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states- rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites… We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Ni***r, ni***r.'”

-Lee Atwater, consultant and strategist to the Republican party, adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

 

[Faun]

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act.....

Liar...

Nay R Goldwater, Barry AZ

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

 

[2aguy]

Yes....you can tell voting for democrats has done a lot for blacks in this country......their out of wedlock birth rate is close to 70%....their education in democrat controlled schools sometimes reaches 50% graduation rates....the poverty, crime and murder rates...yes, voting for the racist democrat party and their racist policies has helped blacks in the United States.......

The racists in the south stayed with the democrat party, those who grew up, and didn't want to obsess about race became Republicans.....racism is the core of the democrat party, racists of all colors belong to the party, and their racist parties have destroyed minority communities throughout the United States....

Nope, Republicans control most of that. In the racist south, they control most governorships, state legislatures, U.S. Congressional seats, local school boards. The southern racists, who were once Democrats a long time ago, haven't changed their views on blacks, only their political party; which is now Republican. Because LBJ stabbed them in the back for supporting civil rights for blacks.

The South isn't racist..

Amazing isn't it?

From the beginning of the United States until 1964, the South was 'racist', but suddenly after 1964 Southerners were no longer racists(except of course Southern blacks)

Was there a massive migration that we missed?

Here you go asswipe......
]

'asswipe'- lol- what are you 13 years old?


A Republican propaganda piece?

Surely you can do better than that.

"At one time the Democrats were the racists of the south, while the kindly Republicans held the North- until the 1960's..."
"Prager U" Misleads, Then Ignores Modern History

The headline: “The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party,” accentuated with cartoonish images of a clansman and the stars and bars horizontally aligning with the Democratic Donkey- the imagery not too dissimilar from a slot machine missing on three different symbols.

But Prager U did indeed hit the jackpot here. For it’s hard enough for them to find a respectable university professor to voice an opinion to coincide with their mostly unfound and misleading political hackery, but to find one that is African-American, speaking about issues pertaining to the black community is the equivalent of hitting the Powerball after months of an unclaimed prize.

In watching the first four minutes of this almost six-minute clip, Professor Carol Swain is actually very accurate. In the distant past, the Democratic Party was the party of racism, defending the unconscionable act of owning slaves. Democrats largely resided in the south and were willing to go so far as to commit treason and split from the nation to form a confederacy to defend their “right” to continue to practice slave labor.

But from that point on, her commentary becomes misplaced and evasive:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Since it’s founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.”

I seem to remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being the creation of JFK (a Democrat), and then finished and implemented under LBJ (a Democrat). And as for Congress, the support for the legislation had nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with whether the congressmen represented the north or the south. This indisputable fact of voting correlation is one that she does not even acknowledge. Instead, she untruthfully affixes vote direction to political party:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Democratic Senator’s fillibusted for 75 days..”

The Senator’s who filibustered the legislation were Richard Russell (Georgia), Strom Thurmund (South Carolina), Robert Byrd (West Virginia) and Sam Ervin (North Carolina). Bringing the argument into the more modern era – those are all states that Republican’s enjoy comfortable dominance in. Those men who represented those states are appropriately referred to as “Dixiecrats”, and their constituency swung to the Republican Party during the late 1960’s when Democratic presidents created and passed the Civil Rights Act Of 1964- a swing that was solidified even further when Nixon decided to pander to the “states rights” racists in the south. These states have voted predominantly Republican since then.

Professor Swain’s quote: “..the only serious Congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. 80 percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill, less than 70 percent of Democrats did.”

Putting aside the fact that a little bit more than 10 percent separating the respective parties support of the legislation is hardly constitutes one side being fully supportive, and the other being the “serious Congressional opposition”, let’s move on to the her more egregious representation of vote correlation.

It is a completely misleading implication to state that the “yeas” and “nays” had any correlation whatsoever to political party. Her claim can be discarded just by looking at the actual vote tallies. The verified fact regarding the way in which a congressman voted has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the region they were representing. As the vote tallies show below, if you were in the south, you very likely opposed the legislation. If you were representing a northern state, you generally favored it with few exceptions. Whether you were a Democrat or Republican mattered little as seen by the voting tallies below for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by region:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 8-87 (7-93%)

Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)

Notice the actual fact of which you’d never be privy to in watching this Prager video – ” the “Northern Democrats” actually supported the bill in a larger proportion than the “Northern Republicans” in both chambers of Congress.

Perhaps most startling of all, there was not a single vote cast in favor of the legislation by southern Republicans by any of their 11 total representatives in both chambers.

What you see above is clear and undisputed – a strong correlation of how a congressmen voted can be drawn from the region they representation, with no correlation drawn from the political party they were affiliated with.

Perhaps a decade ago, a Conservative may have examined the above voting tally, showing that Professor Swain purposely made a completely erroneous correlation to promote a political ideology (I say purposely because she’s a history professor at Vanderbilt University- of course she’d be familiar with the fact that party representation of Congressmen had no correlation with how they voted). And now knowing that this video is propaganda not designed to inform and educate accurately, maybe they say to themselves:

“I’m not going to absorb any more information from this video clip, and will take future Prager U videos with a grain of salt, as it’s representation of the voting tally was completely misleading. Using my own analysis, I can easily see that there is little correlation in how members of the two political parties voted, but a very strong correlation based on the region they represented. This wasn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but a North vs. South issue.”

It doesn’t mean the reader should cease to have conservative principals. It simply means that they’ve utilized a bit of common sense and rationale to determine that the way the voting was represented in this clip was completely disingenuous. And then upon arriving at that conclusion, they make an educated decision to perhaps learn about this issue from a different source.

For this would benefit the Conservative party. It would create more informed, honest debate – absorbing information from reputable outlets to become better educated instead of mislead.

But today we have a president and his cabinet appointees, along with certain members of Congress who are insisting that 1 + 1 = 3 is completely acceptable. In this world, ideology trumps pragmatism, and rewrites and alternate portrayals of history are valid as long as there are people out there who want to believe in it. And if those who are paying attention, unabated by any ideological binders or pseudo-patriotism have the gall to question this obvious nonsense, we’re labeled as an outside infiltrating source full of fake convictions and one of “the others”.

Inexplicably, Professor Swain makes no attempt to address the state of race-relations of each political party as it pertains to the last 50 years of American history, other than to taint the modern Democratic party with broad generalizations that exist only in the deep caverns of the echo chamber that Rush Limbaugh carved out seemingly eons ago.

Although one would think perhaps the greatest amount of time should be spent on Nixon’s Southern Strategy, as it was a monumental sea change which has the single most bearing on where each party stands today on this issue, she instead chooses to wrap up the commentary.

At a certain point in the video, Swain informs all the students at Prager U of a racist comment that Lyndon B. Johnson “purportedly” said. Nothing like students garnering an extensive knowledge base on statements “purportedly” made. If Prager U is the alternative to a “liberal education,” than I’m more than proud to have been “liberally indoctrinated.”

Because in a fact-free environment, the word “purportedly” is free to exist anywhere and everywhere.

Let me conclude by allowing serious political players of the Republican Party to explain the”Southern Strategy” since Professor Swain decided to end her history lesson at around 1964. This are not statements “purportedly” made, but are actual verified statements from interviews.

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

-Kevin Philips, Richard Nixon political strategist

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Ni***r, ni***r, ni***r.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘ni***r’ as that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states- rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites… We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Ni***r, ni***r.'”

-Lee Atwater, consultant and strategist to the Republican party, adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

You really are stupid....


The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

 

[Syriusly]

LOLOLOL

You're actually criticizing Martin Luther King Jr. for supporting the president who delivered civil rights for blacks.



You really can't get any dumber. You've reached your apex.

He delivered more power to the federal government....and fought against Civil Rights for blacks his entire career..

I can't even tell if this confusing statement is 2aguy attacking Martin Luther King Jr.- or LBJ.

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off.

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

Hey...shit bird........johnson was a racist....

'shit bird'- more and more I am fairly certain I am educating a 13 year old boy.

Of course Johnson was a racist- so was Lincoln- the single most important Republican ever elected President.

Yet Johnson was responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and your hero voted against it.

 

[2aguy]

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act.....

Liar...


Nay R Goldwater, Barry AZ

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Asshole.....I have linked to that vote over and over....and linked to why he voted against the 64 act.....it had nothing to do with race...as the repeated link shows.......and everything to do with too much power given to the federal government......

The racist johnson wanted that federal power......even it if meant helping blacks, who he hated, get something out of the deal....

 

[Syriusly]

Quote from the man who 2aguy calls a fool- but whom the rest of America calls a Civil Rights hero.
View attachment 139919

Why does 2aguy consider Goldwater to be a Civil Rights hero- but African Americans don't.

For the same reason- Goldwater voted against the pivotal Civil Rights legislation of the 20th century.

This is who King supported.....

Martin Luther King Jr. 'supported' (not really but close enough) the man who was responsible for the most important Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- and that is why 2aguy hates LBJ.

Martin Luther King. Jr. opposed Goldwater- and the Republicans who nominated him for President- because Goldwater opposed the most important Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years.

2aguy can see a racist any time he wants- he just needs to look in a mirror.

You are a coward..........very brave of you......calling someone a racist when you sit behind a computer screen.....

LOLOL

Projects the idiot calling 95% of blacks, "ignorant," while stationed behind his.

Please....explain to us what blacks voting 95% for democrats,..

Please explain to us all why you think that 95% of African Americans are racists against themselves?

And why you think you are smarter than all of those 95%.

And how that is not racism.

 

[2aguy]

He delivered more power to the federal government....and fought against Civil Rights for blacks his entire career..

I can't even tell if this confusing statement is 2aguy attacking Martin Luther King Jr.- or LBJ.

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off.

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

Hey...shit bird........johnson was a racist....

'shit bird'- more and more I am fairly certain I am educating a 13 year old boy.

Of course Johnson was a racist- so was Lincoln- the single most important Republican ever elected President.

Yet Johnson was responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and your hero voted against it.

Wow....you still can't seem to read......here...

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.
Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.
In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]
That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.
Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.
---
NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There
As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."
Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights



More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

 

[Syriusly]

Nope, Republicans control most of that. In the racist south, they control most governorships, state legislatures, U.S. Congressional seats, local school boards. The southern racists, who were once Democrats a long time ago, haven't changed their views on blacks, only their political party; which is now Republican. Because LBJ stabbed them in the back for supporting civil rights for blacks.

The South isn't racist..

Amazing isn't it?

From the beginning of the United States until 1964, the South was 'racist', but suddenly after 1964 Southerners were no longer racists(except of course Southern blacks)

Was there a massive migration that we missed?

Here you go asswipe......
]

'asswipe'- lol- what are you 13 years old?


A Republican propaganda piece?

Surely you can do better than that.

"At one time the Democrats were the racists of the south, while the kindly Republicans held the North- until the 1960's..."
"Prager U" Misleads, Then Ignores Modern History

The headline: “The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party,” accentuated with cartoonish images of a clansman and the stars and bars horizontally aligning with the Democratic Donkey- the imagery not too dissimilar from a slot machine missing on three different symbols.

But Prager U did indeed hit the jackpot here. For it’s hard enough for them to find a respectable university professor to voice an opinion to coincide with their mostly unfound and misleading political hackery, but to find one that is African-American, speaking about issues pertaining to the black community is the equivalent of hitting the Powerball after months of an unclaimed prize.

In watching the first four minutes of this almost six-minute clip, Professor Carol Swain is actually very accurate. In the distant past, the Democratic Party was the party of racism, defending the unconscionable act of owning slaves. Democrats largely resided in the south and were willing to go so far as to commit treason and split from the nation to form a confederacy to defend their “right” to continue to practice slave labor.

But from that point on, her commentary becomes misplaced and evasive:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Since it’s founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.”

I seem to remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being the creation of JFK (a Democrat), and then finished and implemented under LBJ (a Democrat). And as for Congress, the support for the legislation had nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with whether the congressmen represented the north or the south. This indisputable fact of voting correlation is one that she does not even acknowledge. Instead, she untruthfully affixes vote direction to political party:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Democratic Senator’s fillibusted for 75 days..”

The Senator’s who filibustered the legislation were Richard Russell (Georgia), Strom Thurmund (South Carolina), Robert Byrd (West Virginia) and Sam Ervin (North Carolina). Bringing the argument into the more modern era – those are all states that Republican’s enjoy comfortable dominance in. Those men who represented those states are appropriately referred to as “Dixiecrats”, and their constituency swung to the Republican Party during the late 1960’s when Democratic presidents created and passed the Civil Rights Act Of 1964- a swing that was solidified even further when Nixon decided to pander to the “states rights” racists in the south. These states have voted predominantly Republican since then.

Professor Swain’s quote: “..the only serious Congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. 80 percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill, less than 70 percent of Democrats did.”

Putting aside the fact that a little bit more than 10 percent separating the respective parties support of the legislation is hardly constitutes one side being fully supportive, and the other being the “serious Congressional opposition”, let’s move on to the her more egregious representation of vote correlation.

It is a completely misleading implication to state that the “yeas” and “nays” had any correlation whatsoever to political party. Her claim can be discarded just by looking at the actual vote tallies. The verified fact regarding the way in which a congressman voted has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the region they were representing. As the vote tallies show below, if you were in the south, you very likely opposed the legislation. If you were representing a northern state, you generally favored it with few exceptions. Whether you were a Democrat or Republican mattered little as seen by the voting tallies below for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by region:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 8-87 (7-93%)

Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)

Notice the actual fact of which you’d never be privy to in watching this Prager video – ” the “Northern Democrats” actually supported the bill in a larger proportion than the “Northern Republicans” in both chambers of Congress.

Perhaps most startling of all, there was not a single vote cast in favor of the legislation by southern Republicans by any of their 11 total representatives in both chambers.

What you see above is clear and undisputed – a strong correlation of how a congressmen voted can be drawn from the region they representation, with no correlation drawn from the political party they were affiliated with.

Perhaps a decade ago, a Conservative may have examined the above voting tally, showing that Professor Swain purposely made a completely erroneous correlation to promote a political ideology (I say purposely because she’s a history professor at Vanderbilt University- of course she’d be familiar with the fact that party representation of Congressmen had no correlation with how they voted). And now knowing that this video is propaganda not designed to inform and educate accurately, maybe they say to themselves:

“I’m not going to absorb any more information from this video clip, and will take future Prager U videos with a grain of salt, as it’s representation of the voting tally was completely misleading. Using my own analysis, I can easily see that there is little correlation in how members of the two political parties voted, but a very strong correlation based on the region they represented. This wasn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but a North vs. South issue.”

It doesn’t mean the reader should cease to have conservative principals. It simply means that they’ve utilized a bit of common sense and rationale to determine that the way the voting was represented in this clip was completely disingenuous. And then upon arriving at that conclusion, they make an educated decision to perhaps learn about this issue from a different source.

For this would benefit the Conservative party. It would create more informed, honest debate – absorbing information from reputable outlets to become better educated instead of mislead.

But today we have a president and his cabinet appointees, along with certain members of Congress who are insisting that 1 + 1 = 3 is completely acceptable. In this world, ideology trumps pragmatism, and rewrites and alternate portrayals of history are valid as long as there are people out there who want to believe in it. And if those who are paying attention, unabated by any ideological binders or pseudo-patriotism have the gall to question this obvious nonsense, we’re labeled as an outside infiltrating source full of fake convictions and one of “the others”.

Inexplicably, Professor Swain makes no attempt to address the state of race-relations of each political party as it pertains to the last 50 years of American history, other than to taint the modern Democratic party with broad generalizations that exist only in the deep caverns of the echo chamber that Rush Limbaugh carved out seemingly eons ago.

Although one would think perhaps the greatest amount of time should be spent on Nixon’s Southern Strategy, as it was a monumental sea change which has the single most bearing on where each party stands today on this issue, she instead chooses to wrap up the commentary.

At a certain point in the video, Swain informs all the students at Prager U of a racist comment that Lyndon B. Johnson “purportedly” said. Nothing like students garnering an extensive knowledge base on statements “purportedly” made. If Prager U is the alternative to a “liberal education,” than I’m more than proud to have been “liberally indoctrinated.”

Because in a fact-free environment, the word “purportedly” is free to exist anywhere and everywhere.

Let me conclude by allowing serious political players of the Republican Party to explain the”Southern Strategy” since Professor Swain decided to end her history lesson at around 1964. This are not statements “purportedly” made, but are actual verified statements from interviews.

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

-Kevin Philips, Richard Nixon political strategist

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Ni***r, ni***r, ni***r.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘ni***r’ as that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states- rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites… We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Ni***r, ni***r.'”

-Lee Atwater, consultant and strategist to the Republican party, adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

You really are stupid....


The Party of Civil Rights

LBJ- instrumental in the passage of the 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts.

Your hero?

Voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[2aguy]

This is who King supported.....

Martin Luther King Jr. 'supported' (not really but close enough) the man who was responsible for the most important Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- and that is why 2aguy hates LBJ.

Martin Luther King. Jr. opposed Goldwater- and the Republicans who nominated him for President- because Goldwater opposed the most important Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years.

2aguy can see a racist any time he wants- he just needs to look in a mirror.

You are a coward..........very brave of you......calling someone a racist when you sit behind a computer screen.....

LOLOL

Projects the idiot calling 95% of blacks, "ignorant," while stationed behind his.

Please....explain to us what blacks voting 95% for democrats,..

Please explain to us all why you think that 95% of African Americans are racists against themselves?

And why you think you are smarter than all of those 95%.

And how that is not racism.

95% of blacks vote for the democrat party, a party that is the home of racists of all colors......racism is the core of the democrat party......racist groups, openly and proudly racist groups vote and support the democrat party......racist politicians were their last two Presidents....bill clinton, and barak obama.....

racist groups, racist leaders in a racist party....

 

[Syriusly]

I can't even tell if this confusing statement is 2aguy attacking Martin Luther King Jr.- or LBJ.

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off.

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

Hey...shit bird........johnson was a racist....

'shit bird'- more and more I am fairly certain I am educating a 13 year old boy.

Of course Johnson was a racist- so was Lincoln- the single most important Republican ever elected President.

Yet Johnson was responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and your hero voted against it.

Wow....you still can't seem to read......here...

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker
.

Wow- you still can't seem to read....here

Yet Johnson was responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and your hero voted against it.

Johnson stepped up to the plate.
Goldwater stepped away.

 

[2aguy]

The South isn't racist..

Amazing isn't it?

From the beginning of the United States until 1964, the South was 'racist', but suddenly after 1964 Southerners were no longer racists(except of course Southern blacks)

Was there a massive migration that we missed?

Here you go asswipe......
]

'asswipe'- lol- what are you 13 years old?


A Republican propaganda piece?

Surely you can do better than that.

"At one time the Democrats were the racists of the south, while the kindly Republicans held the North- until the 1960's..."
"Prager U" Misleads, Then Ignores Modern History

The headline: “The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party,” accentuated with cartoonish images of a clansman and the stars and bars horizontally aligning with the Democratic Donkey- the imagery not too dissimilar from a slot machine missing on three different symbols.

But Prager U did indeed hit the jackpot here. For it’s hard enough for them to find a respectable university professor to voice an opinion to coincide with their mostly unfound and misleading political hackery, but to find one that is African-American, speaking about issues pertaining to the black community is the equivalent of hitting the Powerball after months of an unclaimed prize.

In watching the first four minutes of this almost six-minute clip, Professor Carol Swain is actually very accurate. In the distant past, the Democratic Party was the party of racism, defending the unconscionable act of owning slaves. Democrats largely resided in the south and were willing to go so far as to commit treason and split from the nation to form a confederacy to defend their “right” to continue to practice slave labor.

But from that point on, her commentary becomes misplaced and evasive:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Since it’s founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.”

I seem to remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being the creation of JFK (a Democrat), and then finished and implemented under LBJ (a Democrat). And as for Congress, the support for the legislation had nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with whether the congressmen represented the north or the south. This indisputable fact of voting correlation is one that she does not even acknowledge. Instead, she untruthfully affixes vote direction to political party:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Democratic Senator’s fillibusted for 75 days..”

The Senator’s who filibustered the legislation were Richard Russell (Georgia), Strom Thurmund (South Carolina), Robert Byrd (West Virginia) and Sam Ervin (North Carolina). Bringing the argument into the more modern era – those are all states that Republican’s enjoy comfortable dominance in. Those men who represented those states are appropriately referred to as “Dixiecrats”, and their constituency swung to the Republican Party during the late 1960’s when Democratic presidents created and passed the Civil Rights Act Of 1964- a swing that was solidified even further when Nixon decided to pander to the “states rights” racists in the south. These states have voted predominantly Republican since then.

Professor Swain’s quote: “..the only serious Congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. 80 percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill, less than 70 percent of Democrats did.”

Putting aside the fact that a little bit more than 10 percent separating the respective parties support of the legislation is hardly constitutes one side being fully supportive, and the other being the “serious Congressional opposition”, let’s move on to the her more egregious representation of vote correlation.

It is a completely misleading implication to state that the “yeas” and “nays” had any correlation whatsoever to political party. Her claim can be discarded just by looking at the actual vote tallies. The verified fact regarding the way in which a congressman voted has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the region they were representing. As the vote tallies show below, if you were in the south, you very likely opposed the legislation. If you were representing a northern state, you generally favored it with few exceptions. Whether you were a Democrat or Republican mattered little as seen by the voting tallies below for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by region:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 8-87 (7-93%)

Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)

Notice the actual fact of which you’d never be privy to in watching this Prager video – ” the “Northern Democrats” actually supported the bill in a larger proportion than the “Northern Republicans” in both chambers of Congress.

Perhaps most startling of all, there was not a single vote cast in favor of the legislation by southern Republicans by any of their 11 total representatives in both chambers.

What you see above is clear and undisputed – a strong correlation of how a congressmen voted can be drawn from the region they representation, with no correlation drawn from the political party they were affiliated with.

Perhaps a decade ago, a Conservative may have examined the above voting tally, showing that Professor Swain purposely made a completely erroneous correlation to promote a political ideology (I say purposely because she’s a history professor at Vanderbilt University- of course she’d be familiar with the fact that party representation of Congressmen had no correlation with how they voted). And now knowing that this video is propaganda not designed to inform and educate accurately, maybe they say to themselves:

“I’m not going to absorb any more information from this video clip, and will take future Prager U videos with a grain of salt, as it’s representation of the voting tally was completely misleading. Using my own analysis, I can easily see that there is little correlation in how members of the two political parties voted, but a very strong correlation based on the region they represented. This wasn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but a North vs. South issue.”

It doesn’t mean the reader should cease to have conservative principals. It simply means that they’ve utilized a bit of common sense and rationale to determine that the way the voting was represented in this clip was completely disingenuous. And then upon arriving at that conclusion, they make an educated decision to perhaps learn about this issue from a different source.

For this would benefit the Conservative party. It would create more informed, honest debate – absorbing information from reputable outlets to become better educated instead of mislead.

But today we have a president and his cabinet appointees, along with certain members of Congress who are insisting that 1 + 1 = 3 is completely acceptable. In this world, ideology trumps pragmatism, and rewrites and alternate portrayals of history are valid as long as there are people out there who want to believe in it. And if those who are paying attention, unabated by any ideological binders or pseudo-patriotism have the gall to question this obvious nonsense, we’re labeled as an outside infiltrating source full of fake convictions and one of “the others”.

Inexplicably, Professor Swain makes no attempt to address the state of race-relations of each political party as it pertains to the last 50 years of American history, other than to taint the modern Democratic party with broad generalizations that exist only in the deep caverns of the echo chamber that Rush Limbaugh carved out seemingly eons ago.

Although one would think perhaps the greatest amount of time should be spent on Nixon’s Southern Strategy, as it was a monumental sea change which has the single most bearing on where each party stands today on this issue, she instead chooses to wrap up the commentary.

At a certain point in the video, Swain informs all the students at Prager U of a racist comment that Lyndon B. Johnson “purportedly” said. Nothing like students garnering an extensive knowledge base on statements “purportedly” made. If Prager U is the alternative to a “liberal education,” than I’m more than proud to have been “liberally indoctrinated.”

Because in a fact-free environment, the word “purportedly” is free to exist anywhere and everywhere.

Let me conclude by allowing serious political players of the Republican Party to explain the”Southern Strategy” since Professor Swain decided to end her history lesson at around 1964. This are not statements “purportedly” made, but are actual verified statements from interviews.

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

-Kevin Philips, Richard Nixon political strategist

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Ni***r, ni***r, ni***r.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘ni***r’ as that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states- rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites… We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Ni***r, ni***r.'”

-Lee Atwater, consultant and strategist to the Republican party, adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

You really are stupid....


The Party of Civil Rights

LBJ- instrumental in the passage of the 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts.

Your hero?

Voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And the truth....since you leave out the truth...to smear Barry Goldwater while defending the racist LBJ...


Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.
Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.
In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]
That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.
Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.
---
NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There
As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."
Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights



More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

 

[Syriusly]

Martin Luther King Jr. 'supported' (not really but close enough) the man who was responsible for the most important Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- and that is why 2aguy hates LBJ.

Martin Luther King. Jr. opposed Goldwater- and the Republicans who nominated him for President- because Goldwater opposed the most important Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years.

2aguy can see a racist any time he wants- he just needs to look in a mirror.

You are a coward..........very brave of you......calling someone a racist when you sit behind a computer screen.....

LOLOL

Projects the idiot calling 95% of blacks, "ignorant," while stationed behind his.

Please....explain to us what blacks voting 95% for democrats,..

Please explain to us all why you think that 95% of African Americans are racists against themselves?

And why you think you are smarter than all of those 95%.

And how that is not racism.

95% of blacks vote for the democrat party, a party that is the home of racists of all colors......racism is the core of the democrat party......racist groups, openly and proudly racist groups vote and support the democrat party......racist politicians were their last two Presidents....bill clinton, and barak obama.....

racist groups, racist leaders in a racist party....

Yep- once again- to you- its the minorities that are the racists.

Want to see a real racist?

Look in the mirror.

 

[2aguy]

Shit stain.....Goldwater voted for all of the Civil Rights act..

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- LBJ supported it- and signed it into law
HR. 7152. PASSAGE. -- Senate Vote #409 -- Jun 19, 1964

LBJ cosponsored- and voted for the 1960 Civil Rights Act.- I can't find Goldwater's vote.
Goldwater- and LBJ- both voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act
HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957

Considering that LBJ was involved in passing the only significant Civil Rights legislation in the last 100 years- in 1957, in 1960, in 1964 and in 1965- it would seem that if he is speaking about LBJ- he would be lying.

But then again- LBJ was working to help African Americans.

And that pisses 2aguy off

Hey...shit bird........johnson was a racist....

'shit bird'- more and more I am fairly certain I am educating a 13 year old boy.

Of course Johnson was a racist- so was Lincoln- the single most important Republican ever elected President.

Yet Johnson was responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and your hero voted against it.

Wow....you still can't seem to read......here...

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker
.

Wow- you still can't seem to read....here

Yet Johnson was responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and your hero voted against it.

Johnson stepped up to the plate.
Goldwater stepped away.

Liars like you......how do you live with yourself....


Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

Goldwater.....

Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.
Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.
In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]
That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.
Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.
---
NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There
As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."
Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights



More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.

 

[Syriusly]

Amazing isn't it?

From the beginning of the United States until 1964, the South was 'racist', but suddenly after 1964 Southerners were no longer racists(except of course Southern blacks)

Was there a massive migration that we missed?

Here you go asswipe......
]

'asswipe'- lol- what are you 13 years old?


A Republican propaganda piece?

Surely you can do better than that.

"At one time the Democrats were the racists of the south, while the kindly Republicans held the North- until the 1960's..."
"Prager U" Misleads, Then Ignores Modern History

The headline: “The Inconvenient Truth About The Democratic Party,” accentuated with cartoonish images of a clansman and the stars and bars horizontally aligning with the Democratic Donkey- the imagery not too dissimilar from a slot machine missing on three different symbols.

But Prager U did indeed hit the jackpot here. For it’s hard enough for them to find a respectable university professor to voice an opinion to coincide with their mostly unfound and misleading political hackery, but to find one that is African-American, speaking about issues pertaining to the black community is the equivalent of hitting the Powerball after months of an unclaimed prize.

In watching the first four minutes of this almost six-minute clip, Professor Carol Swain is actually very accurate. In the distant past, the Democratic Party was the party of racism, defending the unconscionable act of owning slaves. Democrats largely resided in the south and were willing to go so far as to commit treason and split from the nation to form a confederacy to defend their “right” to continue to practice slave labor.

But from that point on, her commentary becomes misplaced and evasive:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Since it’s founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination.”

I seem to remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being the creation of JFK (a Democrat), and then finished and implemented under LBJ (a Democrat). And as for Congress, the support for the legislation had nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with whether the congressmen represented the north or the south. This indisputable fact of voting correlation is one that she does not even acknowledge. Instead, she untruthfully affixes vote direction to political party:

Professor Swain’s quote: “Democratic Senator’s fillibusted for 75 days..”

The Senator’s who filibustered the legislation were Richard Russell (Georgia), Strom Thurmund (South Carolina), Robert Byrd (West Virginia) and Sam Ervin (North Carolina). Bringing the argument into the more modern era – those are all states that Republican’s enjoy comfortable dominance in. Those men who represented those states are appropriately referred to as “Dixiecrats”, and their constituency swung to the Republican Party during the late 1960’s when Democratic presidents created and passed the Civil Rights Act Of 1964- a swing that was solidified even further when Nixon decided to pander to the “states rights” racists in the south. These states have voted predominantly Republican since then.

Professor Swain’s quote: “..the only serious Congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. 80 percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill, less than 70 percent of Democrats did.”

Putting aside the fact that a little bit more than 10 percent separating the respective parties support of the legislation is hardly constitutes one side being fully supportive, and the other being the “serious Congressional opposition”, let’s move on to the her more egregious representation of vote correlation.

It is a completely misleading implication to state that the “yeas” and “nays” had any correlation whatsoever to political party. Her claim can be discarded just by looking at the actual vote tallies. The verified fact regarding the way in which a congressman voted has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with the region they were representing. As the vote tallies show below, if you were in the south, you very likely opposed the legislation. If you were representing a northern state, you generally favored it with few exceptions. Whether you were a Democrat or Republican mattered little as seen by the voting tallies below for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by region:

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 8-87 (7-93%)

Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0-100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94-6%)

Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5-95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0-100%) (John Tower of Texas)

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98-2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)

Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84-16%)

Notice the actual fact of which you’d never be privy to in watching this Prager video – ” the “Northern Democrats” actually supported the bill in a larger proportion than the “Northern Republicans” in both chambers of Congress.

Perhaps most startling of all, there was not a single vote cast in favor of the legislation by southern Republicans by any of their 11 total representatives in both chambers.

What you see above is clear and undisputed – a strong correlation of how a congressmen voted can be drawn from the region they representation, with no correlation drawn from the political party they were affiliated with.

Perhaps a decade ago, a Conservative may have examined the above voting tally, showing that Professor Swain purposely made a completely erroneous correlation to promote a political ideology (I say purposely because she’s a history professor at Vanderbilt University- of course she’d be familiar with the fact that party representation of Congressmen had no correlation with how they voted). And now knowing that this video is propaganda not designed to inform and educate accurately, maybe they say to themselves:

“I’m not going to absorb any more information from this video clip, and will take future Prager U videos with a grain of salt, as it’s representation of the voting tally was completely misleading. Using my own analysis, I can easily see that there is little correlation in how members of the two political parties voted, but a very strong correlation based on the region they represented. This wasn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but a North vs. South issue.”

It doesn’t mean the reader should cease to have conservative principals. It simply means that they’ve utilized a bit of common sense and rationale to determine that the way the voting was represented in this clip was completely disingenuous. And then upon arriving at that conclusion, they make an educated decision to perhaps learn about this issue from a different source.

For this would benefit the Conservative party. It would create more informed, honest debate – absorbing information from reputable outlets to become better educated instead of mislead.

But today we have a president and his cabinet appointees, along with certain members of Congress who are insisting that 1 + 1 = 3 is completely acceptable. In this world, ideology trumps pragmatism, and rewrites and alternate portrayals of history are valid as long as there are people out there who want to believe in it. And if those who are paying attention, unabated by any ideological binders or pseudo-patriotism have the gall to question this obvious nonsense, we’re labeled as an outside infiltrating source full of fake convictions and one of “the others”.

Inexplicably, Professor Swain makes no attempt to address the state of race-relations of each political party as it pertains to the last 50 years of American history, other than to taint the modern Democratic party with broad generalizations that exist only in the deep caverns of the echo chamber that Rush Limbaugh carved out seemingly eons ago.

Although one would think perhaps the greatest amount of time should be spent on Nixon’s Southern Strategy, as it was a monumental sea change which has the single most bearing on where each party stands today on this issue, she instead chooses to wrap up the commentary.

At a certain point in the video, Swain informs all the students at Prager U of a racist comment that Lyndon B. Johnson “purportedly” said. Nothing like students garnering an extensive knowledge base on statements “purportedly” made. If Prager U is the alternative to a “liberal education,” than I’m more than proud to have been “liberally indoctrinated.”

Because in a fact-free environment, the word “purportedly” is free to exist anywhere and everywhere.

Let me conclude by allowing serious political players of the Republican Party to explain the”Southern Strategy” since Professor Swain decided to end her history lesson at around 1964. This are not statements “purportedly” made, but are actual verified statements from interviews.

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

-Kevin Philips, Richard Nixon political strategist

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Ni***r, ni***r, ni***r.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘ni***r’ as that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states- rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites… We want to cut this, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Ni***r, ni***r.'”

-Lee Atwater, consultant and strategist to the Republican party, adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

You really are stupid....


The Party of Civil Rights

LBJ- instrumental in the passage of the 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts.

Your hero?

Voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And the truth....since you leave out the truth...to smear Barry Goldwater while defending the racist LBJ...

The truth is that LBJ made the 1964 Civil Rights Act pass.
Goldwater voted against it.

And that is why you idolize Goldwater.