Setting the record straight on the the Civil Rights Act

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Setting the record straight on the the Civil Rights Act

Now that’s irony – the conservative OP, opposed to comprehensive civil rights for all Americans, is going to ‘set the record straight’ on the Civil Rights Act.

As already correctly noted: those opposed to the Act were conservatives, both democratic and republican.

Party affiliation is irrelevant, at issue is political philosophy, where conservatives were for the most part opposed to the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and where conservatives are for the most part opposed to civil rights for all Americans today.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Uh....no they are not. Most of them are dead chief. It has been 45 years since LBJ was last elected. You think a lot of the 40, 50, 60, and 70 year olds from then are still alive and voting?

Would you like to try again TOS? There's a charm?

There's a charm? Where?

 

[Spoonman]

It's important to note that the Republicans unanimously supported all Civil Rights legislation at the public level (public transportation, government buildings, etc.). The few that opposed the final Civil Rights legislation did so because they were opposed to the private sector being told what to do by government.

Again, guy, it's not what they did in 1964, where Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights act and got a whopping 6% of the African American vote (as opposed to Ike, who got 26% of it in 1956).

It was everything the GOP did afterwards.

It was the GOP employing the "Southern Strategy" of pandering to these segregationists after they had effectively lost the argument.

It was Nixon appealling to them in 1968.

It was Reagan talking about "Welfare Queens" and "Young Bucks" on food stamps.

It was Bush-41 showing a big scary picture of Willie Horton. (and then denying he did it.)

And here's the thing. Now it's backfiring. This might have been a good political strategy in 1980 when White people made up 88% of the electorate, but now it's less than 70%.

and its the democrat who continue to keep them enslaved on welfare. so when is this "helping hand" going to break the cycle? when do the poor stop being poor? when do they become educated and competitive in the job market? they don't do they. the cycle goes on and on and on. they continue to rely on the hand outs. they continue to live in poverty. they continue to remain uneducated and without skills.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

and its the democrat who continue to keep them enslaved on welfare. so when is this "helping hand" going to break the cycle? when do the poor stop being poor? when do they become educated and competitive in the job market? they don't do they. the cycle goes on and on and on. they continue to rely on the hand outs. they continue to live in poverty. they continue to remain uneducated and without skills.

1) most black folks have jobs.

BlackDemographics.com | EMPLOYMENT

2) The majority of folks on Welfare are white

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/who-benefits-from-the-safety-net/?_r=0

Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.

White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.

3) You spew out shit like this, you kind of sound like this guy....

 

[jillian]

[q

and its the democrat who continue to keep them enslaved on welfare. so when is this "helping hand" going to break the cycle? when do the poor stop being poor? when do they become educated and competitive in the job market? they don't do they. the cycle goes on and on and on. they continue to rely on the hand outs. they continue to live in poverty. they continue to remain uneducated and without skills.

1) most black folks have jobs.

BlackDemographics.com | EMPLOYMENT

2) The majority of folks on Welfare are white

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/who-benefits-from-the-safety-net/?_r=0

Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.

White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.

3) You spew out shit like this, you kind of sound like this guy....

your second point, that there are more white people on welfare than black kind of messes up their "welfare mother" dog whistle meme.

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives, no matter how much black ass you kiss, you won't get their votes. As much as they like getting their asses kissed to inflate their sensitive egos, they love the free shit the democrats give them more.

Just cut it out, and stand up for the interests of your voting base, the white working class, for a change.

Here's one of those white, racist liberals Rottweiler has been talking about.

I am not a liberal. The Republican Party is the other wing of a the liberal behemoth. The Democrat and Republican Parties are two sides of the same coin that don't represent thhe interests of normal white people.

But you are so stupid that you got it completely backwards. It's the racist liberals who kiss the ass of the minority community they hate just to get the votes they need. They consider all minorities (not just blacks) "useful idiots" for their cause.

My dear USMB-friend Jillian is a perfect example of this. Despite the fact that her party hates her for her religion, she still hands over power to them. But if the Dumbocrats ever achieve what they actually desire, poor Jillian would find her ass in an internment camp faster than you can say holocaust.

Like all communists, the Dumbocrats (not all of course, but the large majority of the party) believes the ends justifies the means. So they align themselves with people they despise until such time as they achieve what they wanted. The absolute disgust and contempt that Kennedy and his VP Johnson held for each other is legendary. The same with Obama, Biden, and Hillary.

 

[P@triot]

Any way you slice it, it was conservatives who opposed civil rights

They still do

President Obama vehemently disagrees with your false version of history junior:

Speaking at the Civil Rights Summit at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas yesterday, President Obama praised President Johnson passing the “most sweeping” civil rights legislation “since Reconstruction” even though “it would anger powerful southern Democrats and committee chairmen.” On radio this morning, Pat and Stu discussed new reports that actually suggest Republicans may have played a larger role in the 1964 Civil Rights Act than they are given credit for.

Any way you slice it, you're a liar. Dumbocrats vehemently opposed emancipation in the 1860's and they vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's. Let's take a look at Dumbocrat Lyndon Johnson's own racist words, shall we? This represents how the Dumbocrats have always looked at minorities:

"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. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

How embarrassing for you and your despicable party. Now lie some more junior...

 

[velvtacheeze]

The Dixiecrats who were mad about the CRA left the Democratic Party, and became members of the GOP. Southern white conservatives, who are still seething about the CRA, are Republicans now. If the CRA were up for a vote today, the GOP would overwhelmingly oppose it.

 

[Spoonman]

Any way you slice it, it was conservatives who opposed civil rights

They still do

except it was a democratic party who fought a war to keep them as slaves while republicans fought for their freedom. republicans voted for their civil rights while many democrats opposed them. we know how liberals slice things. always cutting into someone elses piece and offering nothing in return.

 

[P@triot]

The Republicans stayed Republicans. There's your explanation.

I guess it was the liberals who burnt crosses in front of black people's homes, and called the members of the Civil Rights movement commies, yankees, and niggger-lovin' Jews. Or does yhat sound like something that southern conservatives would say? Those pany-assed peaceniks bombed black churches, and beat and lynched black people, right? That makes sense to your mind doesn't it?

First of all the dixiecrats, after a failed presidential election attempt went right back home to the democrat party. That is fact don't listen to people like..well...anyone on the left.

Second there is nothing in the history of the Republican party that a black person should take offense. Not so for the democrat party. The party of slavery. The party of the KKK. The party of poll taxes, Jim Crow and segregation. All of which they have never apologized for, why? Why? Because they are not repentant they instead try and claim that all the racist left their party and not only became Republican but controlled the republican party. Total horse manure. The things Nixon did for the black man makes Obama look pale as a ghost. Reagan signed MLK's birthday into law so don't tell me that republicans have done one damn thing to harm blacks.

You really need to do a better job of making your case with black Americans. With only seven percent voting for Republicans, they are not buying what you are selling

Maybe if you tried some history that is not from 50 years ago

Uh-oh....old liewinger just got caught lying again...

In post #97 he states (and I quote) "Any way you slice it, it was conservatives who opposed civil rights". But in post #100 right here he said (in response to a great post about the Dumbocrats ugly history) "maybe if you tried some history that is not from 50 years ago". Well, wait a second, 50 years ago was the Civil Rights Act. And you just said that conservatives "opposed" civil rights. But then you turn around and state that conservatives need to point to 50 years ago to show what they've done for minorities.

Oops.... Like most liars, liewinger is literally too stupid to remember when he said just three posts later and contradicts himself. I love when you people get caught lying.

 

[P@triot]

The Dixiecrats who were mad about the CRA left the Democratic Party, and became members of the GOP. Southern white conservatives, who are still seething about the CRA, are Republicans now. If the CRA were up for a vote today, the GOP would overwhelmingly oppose it.

I love how liberals ignore actual history (Republicans are the only party that has done anything for minorities) for the version of what *would* happen tomorrow in their limited little minds...

Funny thing is, when tomorrow actually comes, the reality never matches up to the liberals view (of course). You people exist in such a bizarre state due to your inability to see through George Soros's propaganda to control you. I can't imagine being such a weak minded individual. Liberals suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The South in 1964 wasn't conservative? That's funny.

Barry Goldwater, one of the FEW Republican Senators who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act in 1964, also ran for president in 1964,

about all he won in that election was the South.

He is also one of the most conservative candidates from either party in the modern era to run for president.

Now let the geniuses here explain why suddenly all those southern states with all their supposedly liberal Democrats suddenly became conservative Republicans at the ballot box

 

[rightwinger]

Any way you slice it, it was conservatives who opposed civil rights

They still do

President Obama vehemently disagrees with your false version of history junior:

Speaking at the Civil Rights Summit at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas yesterday, President Obama praised President Johnson passing the “most sweeping” civil rights legislation “since Reconstruction” even though “it would anger powerful southern Democrats and committee chairmen.” On radio this morning, Pat and Stu discussed new reports that actually suggest Republicans may have played a larger role in the 1964 Civil Rights Act than they are given credit for.

Any way you slice it, you're a liar. Dumbocrats vehemently opposed emancipation in the 1860's and they vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's. Let's take a look at Dumbocrat Lyndon Johnson's own racist words, shall we? This represents how the Dumbocrats have always looked at minorities:

"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. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

How embarrassing for you and your despicable party. Now lie some more junior...

Damn.....you were so close to getting it right
Do you mind if I give you partial credit?

When you highlighted Democrats in Red, you neglected to highlight "Southern Democrats"

I'm sure it was just an omission on your part

 

[P@triot]

The South in 1964 wasn't conservative? That's funny.

Barry Goldwater, one of the FEW Republican Senators who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act in 1964, also ran for president in 1964,

about all he won in that election was the South.

He is also one of the most conservative candidates from either party in the modern era to run for president.

Now let the geniuses here explain why suddenly all those southern states with all their supposedly liberal Democrats suddenly became conservative Republicans at the ballot box

The 88th Congress (1963 - 1965):

88th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The entire south is painted blue. Holy shit do you look insanely ******* stupid right now [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION].

 

[rightwinger]

First of all the dixiecrats, after a failed presidential election attempt went right back home to the democrat party. That is fact don't listen to people like..well...anyone on the left.

Second there is nothing in the history of the Republican party that a black person should take offense. Not so for the democrat party. The party of slavery. The party of the KKK. The party of poll taxes, Jim Crow and segregation. All of which they have never apologized for, why? Why? Because they are not repentant they instead try and claim that all the racist left their party and not only became Republican but controlled the republican party. Total horse manure. The things Nixon did for the black man makes Obama look pale as a ghost. Reagan signed MLK's birthday into law so don't tell me that republicans have done one damn thing to harm blacks.

You really need to do a better job of making your case with black Americans. With only seven percent voting for Republicans, they are not buying what you are selling

Maybe if you tried some history that is not from 50 years ago

Uh-oh....old liewinger just got caught lying again...

In post #97 he states (and I quote) "Any way you slice it, it was conservatives who opposed civil rights". But in post #100 right here he said (in response to a great post about the Dumbocrats ugly history) "maybe if you tried some history that is not from 50 years ago". Well, wait a second, 50 years ago was the Civil Rights Act. And you just said that conservatives "opposed" civil rights. But then you turn around and state that conservatives need to point to 50 years ago to show what they've done for minorities.

Oops.... Like most liars, liewinger is literally too stupid to remember when he said just three posts later and contradicts himself. I love when you people get caught lying.

I know you are trying your best, but you just can't seem to get it right

You can't use Conservative and Republican interchangeably. Especially when you talk about 1965

 

[P@triot]

The South in 1964 wasn't conservative? That's funny.

Barry Goldwater, one of the FEW Republican Senators who voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act in 1964, also ran for president in 1964,

about all he won in that election was the South.

He is also one of the most conservative candidates from either party in the modern era to run for president.

Now let the geniuses here explain why suddenly all those southern states with all their supposedly liberal Democrats suddenly became conservative Republicans at the ballot box

The 88th Congress (1963 - 1965):

88th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The entire south is painted blue. Holy shit do you look insanely ******* stupid right now [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION].

The 88th Congressional Senate:

The entire south is painted blue. Holy shit do you look insanely ******* stupid right now [MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION].

 

[KNB]

And now the entire south is painted red. Why is that?

 

[P@triot]

You really need to do a better job of making your case with black Americans. With only seven percent voting for Republicans, they are not buying what you are selling

Maybe if you tried some history that is not from 50 years ago

Uh-oh....old liewinger just got caught lying again...

In post #97 he states (and I quote) "Any way you slice it, it was conservatives who opposed civil rights". But in post #100 right here he said (in response to a great post about the Dumbocrats ugly history) "maybe if you tried some history that is not from 50 years ago". Well, wait a second, 50 years ago was the Civil Rights Act. And you just said that conservatives "opposed" civil rights. But then you turn around and state that conservatives need to point to 50 years ago to show what they've done for minorities.

Oops.... Like most liars, liewinger is literally too stupid to remember when he said just three posts later and contradicts himself. I love when you people get caught lying.

I know you are trying your best, but you just can't seem to get it right

You can't use Conservative and Republican interchangeably. Especially when you talk about 1965

That's the best you can do liewinger?!? You got caught lying and that's the best response you could come up with?

You know what can be used interchangeably? Dumbocrats and racism. In any era. For their entire miserable existence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Any way you slice it, it was conservatives who opposed civil rights

They still do

President Obama vehemently disagrees with your false version of history junior:

Speaking at the Civil Rights Summit at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas yesterday, President Obama praised President Johnson passing the “most sweeping” civil rights legislation “since Reconstruction” even though “it would anger powerful southern Democrats and committee chairmen.” On radio this morning, Pat and Stu discussed new reports that actually suggest Republicans may have played a larger role in the 1964 Civil Rights Act than they are given credit for.

Any way you slice it, you're a liar. Dumbocrats vehemently opposed emancipation in the 1860's and they vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's. Let's take a look at Dumbocrat Lyndon Johnson's own racist words, shall we? This represents how the Dumbocrats have always looked at minorities:

"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. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again." --Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957

How embarrassing for you and your despicable party. Now lie some more junior...

You either don't know or you pretend not to know that the Democratic Party in the first half of the 20th century was a North/South Liberal/Conservative coalition.

FDR's long term success came from taking advantage of that coalition, mostly by not messing with the conservative southern Democrats' segregationist stance.

That changed with Truman, who began to push for civil rights and push back against the southern conservative Democrats in the party.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Okay, so the CRA was supported by the GOP and opposed by Dixiecrats.

I don't care. I'm not impressed.

Today's GOP would overwhelmingly oppose the CRA is it were up for a vote today. That's what matters.