Voting Rights, Filibuster, Conservatives & MLK

[Biff_Poindexter]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Thanks to LBJ you got Vietnam and black families where a government check took the place of the male head of household

 

[Correll]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Are you happy with the results of the last 50 years of civil rights?

 

[TNHarley]

Fuck the unconstitutional CRA

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Civil Right, LBJ called it the "****** Bill" when Ike proposed it in 1957

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."


MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Wow. You ass wipes try to tie EVERYTHING to racism.

What a pathetic life.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

WYEKSO?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Notice Biff (or the article's author) had to LEAD with Barry Goldwater and take the emphasis off the KKK Grand Wizard DEMOCRAT Robert Byrd.

How did that vote eventually come down, by the way?

Tribalism at its worst.

 

[whitehall]

The argument about filibuster is ludicrous. Democrats want to do away with it when they are in charge. Republicans want to do away with it when they are in charge. You almost gotta laugh that democrats won all the marbles but they still act like losers.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Thanks to LBJ you got Vietnam and black families where a government check took the place of the male head of household

Yea, many smart and brave folks opposed Vietnam - AT THE TIME IT WAS HAPPENING.......not many of them were Conservatives tho....


MLK was demonized for opposing the war in Vietnam....like when he said this about Vietnam

That's why it's fun seeing you conservatives pretend to be against that war "AFTER THE FACT" as if you would have had the same opposition to it if you were around back then....

 

[InspectorDetector]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Thanks to LBJ you got Vietnam and black families where a government check took the place of the male head of household

DING!! DING!! We have a winner!!! Or, as LBJ stated, when the "Great Society" was passed - "We'll have them ******* voting for us the next 100 years!"

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

The argument about filibuster is ludicrous. Democrats want to do away with it when they are in charge. Republicans want to do away with it when they are in charge. You almost gotta laugh that democrats won all the marbles but they still act like losers.

They're obsession for bipartisanship does make them weak ... and republicans take advantage of that every time....

Republicans never gave a fuck about bipartisanship -- they just whine about it when they are out of power....and Democrats are dumb enough to allow it to work

 

[theHawk]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Are you happy with the results of the last 50 years of civil rights?

Wow, comparing looney lefty Sinema to Barry Goldwater.

Now I’ve heard it all...

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Thanks to LBJ you got Vietnam and black families where a government check took the place of the male head of household

DING!! DING!! We have a winner!!! Or, as LBJ stated, when the "Great Society" was passed - "We'll have them ******* voting for us the next 100 years!"

Except he never said it...

And the funny part is...even if he did say it -- the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Act were still good policies.....

And nobody who uses Medicare today gives a fuck about what LBJ said or didn't say........the same goes for FDR....nobody who cashing the SSI check gives a fuck if FDR signed that bill into law....

That is the issue with you conservatives...you folks be so enamored with your need worship a politician....the rest of us only care about POLICIES

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Are you happy with the results of the last 50 years of civil rights?

Wow, comparing looney lefty Sinema to Barry Goldwater.

Now I’ve heard it all...

Refute a single thing I said or shut the entire fuck up

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Thanks to LBJ you got Vietnam and black families where a government check took the place of the male head of household

Yea, many smart and brave folks opposed Vietnam - AT THE TIME IT WAS HAPPENING.......not many of them were Conservatives tho....


MLK was demonized for opposing the war in Vietnam....like when he said this about Vietnam
View attachment 499152

That's why it's fun seeing you conservatives pretend to be against that war "AFTER THE FACT" as if you would have had the same opposition to it if you were around back then....

Yeah, both my mom AND my did served in that war. I wasn't even fucking born yet.

I am against all foreign wars.

Does this qualify as "after the fact" or will you retroactively apply it to me too, AGAIN, SOLELY because I am white?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The argument about filibuster is ludicrous. Democrats want to do away with it when they are in charge. Republicans want to do away with it when they are in charge. You almost gotta laugh that democrats won all the marbles but they still act like losers.

They're obsession for bipartisanship does make them weak ... and republicans take advantage of that every time....

Republicans never gave a fuck about bipartisanship -- they just whine about it when they are out of power....and Democrats are dumb enough to allow it to work

Your Duopoly tribalism is showing.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Thanks to LBJ you got Vietnam and black families where a government check took the place of the male head of household

Yea, many smart and brave folks opposed Vietnam - AT THE TIME IT WAS HAPPENING.......not many of them were Conservatives tho....


MLK was demonized for opposing the war in Vietnam....like when he said this about Vietnam
View attachment 499152

That's why it's fun seeing you conservatives pretend to be against that war "AFTER THE FACT" as if you would have had the same opposition to it if you were around back then....

Yeah, both my mom AND my did served in that war. I wasn't even fucking born yet.

I am against all foreign wars.

Does this qualify as "after the fact" or will you retroactively apply it to me too, AGAIN, SOLELY because I am white?

You aren't conservative remember??

So why does me stating ACTUAL FACTS about conservatives trigger you so much?

 

[theHawk]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Are you happy with the results of the last 50 years of civil rights?

Wow, comparing looney lefty Sinema to Barry Goldwater.

Now I’ve heard it all...

Refute a single thing I said or shut the entire fuck up

Sure. Can you show us the text of any of these voting laws that make them racist or oppress people of color? Which laws deny blacks the right to vote?

Be specific.

 

[InspectorDetector]

Sinema’s Position on the Filibuster Echoes Goldwater’s Case Against Civil Rights

Her claim that the Senate must change “behavior,” not “rules,” calls to mind her Arizona predecessor’s argument that fighting racism required changing “hearts,” not laws.

www.thenation.com

"Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s latest reasons for supporting the legislative filibuster—and effectively killing voting rights legislation for the near future—reminded me of another specious political argument. But whose? Standing next to conservative Texas Senator John Cornyn, Sinema piously told reporters that progress in the Senate will require senators to “change the behavior,” not the “rules.

I realized that she was echoing her predecessor, the late Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater, who framed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act: “This is fundamentally a matter of the heart. The problems of discrimination can never be cured by laws alone.” Goldwater lost the battle—Lyndon Johnson crushed him that November—but won the war, with his minions taking over the GOP and pulling it to the far right (too far right for Goldwater, he said before he died)."



MLK was strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster in the denial of Civil and Voting rights...there were no secrets about it....he referred to that filibuster as misguided Senators using it as a tool to prevent AMERICANS from being able exercise their full constitutional rights -- by denying them access to voting -- and this was at a time when cloture required 67 votes instead of 60...but Hubert Humphrey teamed up with Dirksen and Dirksen got 27 Republicans to join with the Democrats in ending the filibuster and passing the bill.

The Senators leading the filibuster at that time were Democrats like Senator Russell from GA, Senator Byrd of WV and Strom Thurmond of NC....In Thurmond's case he was so opposed to his own party's support of Civil Rights and Voting Rights that he refused to endorse his party's own nominee because of it...was this a "Liberal" or "Conservative" position to take? In his case it ultimately resulted in him switching to the Republican party...what about the passage of Civil Rights made him think the Democratic party was too "liberal" for him to remain a part of?

Nearly 60 years later and we are still faced with a filibuster standing in the way of strengthening and protecting voting rights -- we are still faced with so-called "Conservative" Democrat Senators aiding Republicans in the blockage of protecting those voting rights...as much as some "Conservatives" love to claim they were on the side of MLK and the Civil Rights movement all along -- we certainly see over and over again how its Conservatives continuing to oppose the same voting rights they have always opposed...in spite of their lip service and virtue signaling..until they lose that fight too and history shames them again into pretending they were "for it" all along.

Thanks to LBJ you got Vietnam and black families where a government check took the place of the male head of household

DING!! DING!! We have a winner!!! Or, as LBJ stated, when the "Great Society" was passed - "We'll have them ******* voting for us the next 100 years!"

Except he never said it...

And the funny part is...even if he did say it -- the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Act were still good policies.....

And nobody who uses Medicare today gives a fuck about what LBJ said or didn't say........the same goes for FDR....nobody who cashing the SSI check gives a fuck if FDR signed that bill into law....

That is the issue with you conservatives...you folks be so enamored with your need worship a politician....the rest of us only care about POLICIES

Well, I'll tell you what poindexter - I was around back then (getting ready to go to Vietnam - and I remember "Uncle Walt" (look it up if you don't know who he was) said it on the news followed by Huntley Brinkley. I stand by the words HE used. Not the propaganda that is put out there that says he didn't.

Anyone who was around at that time knew the man that was LBJ - a racist to the core.