Voting Rights, Filibuster, Conservatives & MLK

[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?

You aren't conservative remember??

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

Oh, no. This is a continuation of our discussion on your other bullshit thread where you accuse me of being a "conservative" and of retroactively traveling back in time, before I was born, and hating MLK.

And, you're doing it here with these other guys.

Don't get mad at me when I point out your nonsense and the impossible standards you set for everyone BUT yourself.

 

[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

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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

You FUCKING SLAVE!!! Your fucking Party got us into Vietnam!!

You FUCKING LIED ABOUT GOLDWATER!!!

You got what you deserved

How's life on that democrat plantation boy? Your massa run around in black face call each pother ****** and you don't dare talk back

Biden called black fucking morons just last week

 

[Dekster]

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.

Total BS. The thing would not pass anyway and it isn't the only proposal out there. The For The People act is unconstitutional on its face. There is nothing preventing the democrats from revamping the Voting Rights Act. INstead San Fran Nancy and Chucky Schumer think they have the power to micromanage how every state handles its elections or allocates their electors and design their congressional districts. They cannot.

 

[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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

 

[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

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.

I don't have to.....

Racists themselves believe these laws are VITAL to them maintaining power...

No, there are no laws that states "blacks can't vote" -- you conservatives lost that battle 60 years ago....

Now the laws must be as Lee Atwater said -- more abstract.....to where the end result hurts blacks more than whites...

Like how in Texas they tried to restrict voting on Sundays because of the well known fact that black churches do "Souls to the Polls" on Sundays...

And when they were called out on it -- they lied and claimed it was a mistake.....

"A key Texas Republican blamed a typographical error for a controversial provision of the restrictive voting bill that failed to pass over the weekend, saying Tuesday that he intends to eliminate limits on Sunday morning voting from the proposal. state Rep. Travis Clardy, a Republican on the Elections Committee, said Tuesday on NPR. "That was not intended to be reduced. I think there was a — you know, call it a mistake if you want."

Texas Republican blames typo for proposed Sunday voting limits

While debating the bill, Republicans defended the provision as necessary. Democrats argued that it was an effort to suppress the Black vote and "souls to the polls."

www.nbcnews.com

You can play dumb with someone else -- I ain't the one to play those gaslighting games with...I back up everything I say

 

[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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

But I see you still haven't refuted a single thing I said yet...

You whining about your personal feelings are just the musings of a bitch....

Refute these facts

 

[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

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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

He forgets democrats fought a war to keep their slaves, fought against Civil Rights, were the party of Jim Crow and the KKK and thinks he can blame Conservatives for his Party's sins

 

[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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

But I see you still haven't refuted a single thing I said yet...

You whining about your personal feelings are just the musings of a bitch....

Refute these facts

What facts?

You're traveling us all back in time to 1964 and telling us how we would have voted then to try to prove that we are racists NOW because we don't think this pile-of-shit legislation is constitutional on its face.

Your whole premise is bullshit.

 

[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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

He forgets democrats fought a war to keep their slaves, fought against Civil Rights, were the party of Jim Crow and the KKK and thinks he can blame Conservatives for his Party's sins

It's deeper than that. This is all about race for Biff.

 

[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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

He forgets democrats fought a war to keep their slaves, fought against Civil Rights, were the party of Jim Crow and the KKK and thinks he can blame Conservatives for his Party's sins

There is a reason cucks like you can't refute a single thing I said....

Why did Thurmond oppose his own party's Democratic candidate because of the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Act?? Because he was liberal??

Again.....only morons make such childish arguments.....

 

[jc456]

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.

hell yes.

 

[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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

But I see you still haven't refuted a single thing I said yet...

You whining about your personal feelings are just the musings of a bitch....

Refute these facts

What facts?

You're traveling us all back in time to 1964 and telling us how we would have voted then to try to prove that we are racists NOW because we don't think this pile-of-shit legislation is constitutional on its face.

Your whole premise is bullshit.

there is nothing unconstitutional about protecting voting rights...but I understand why you think it is...

 

[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.

I don't have to.....

Racists themselves believe these laws are VITAL to them maintaining power...

No, there are no laws that states "blacks can't vote" -- you conservatives lost that battle 60 years ago....

Now the laws must be as Lee Atwater said -- more abstract.....to where the end result hurts blacks more than whites...

Like how in Texas they tried to restrict voting on Sundays because of the well known fact that black churches do "Souls to the Polls" on Sundays...

And when they were called out on it -- they lied and claimed it was a mistake.....

"A key Texas Republican blamed a typographical error for a controversial provision of the restrictive voting bill that failed to pass over the weekend, saying Tuesday that he intends to eliminate limits on Sunday morning voting from the proposal. state Rep. Travis Clardy, a Republican on the Elections Committee, said Tuesday on NPR. "That was not intended to be reduced. I think there was a — you know, call it a mistake if you want."

Texas Republican blames typo for proposed Sunday voting limits

While debating the bill, Republicans defended the provision as necessary. Democrats argued that it was an effort to suppress the Black vote and "souls to the polls."

www.nbcnews.com

You can play dumb with someone else -- I ain't the one to play those gaslighting games with...I back up everything I say

So in other words you’re full of shit, and there are no laws that restrict people from voting based on the color of their skin.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[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.

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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

But I see you still haven't refuted a single thing I said yet...

You whining about your personal feelings are just the musings of a bitch....

Refute these facts

What facts?

You're traveling us all back in time to 1964 and telling us how we would have voted then to try to prove that we are racists NOW because we don't think this pile-of-shit legislation is constitutional on its face.

Your whole premise is bullshit.

It’s always a woot how these lefties always pin the actions of Democrats on modern day conservatives.

 

[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

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.

I don't have to.....

Racists themselves believe these laws are VITAL to them maintaining power...

No, there are no laws that states "blacks can't vote" -- you conservatives lost that battle 60 years ago....

Now the laws must be as Lee Atwater said -- more abstract.....to where the end result hurts blacks more than whites...

Like how in Texas they tried to restrict voting on Sundays because of the well known fact that black churches do "Souls to the Polls" on Sundays...

And when they were called out on it -- they lied and claimed it was a mistake.....

"A key Texas Republican blamed a typographical error for a controversial provision of the restrictive voting bill that failed to pass over the weekend, saying Tuesday that he intends to eliminate limits on Sunday morning voting from the proposal. state Rep. Travis Clardy, a Republican on the Elections Committee, said Tuesday on NPR. "That was not intended to be reduced. I think there was a — you know, call it a mistake if you want."

Texas Republican blames typo for proposed Sunday voting limits

While debating the bill, Republicans defended the provision as necessary. Democrats argued that it was an effort to suppress the Black vote and "souls to the polls."

www.nbcnews.com

You can play dumb with someone else -- I ain't the one to play those gaslighting games with...I back up everything I say

So in other words you’re full of shit, and there are no laws that restrict people from voting based on the color of their skin.

Thanks for proving my point.

It is already against the law to use the letter of the law to discriminate against people based on race -- but it is definitely possible to try to place voting restrictions on people in the hopes that minority voters are the most adversely affected...I understand you morons think a discriminatory bill is only racist if it IMPLICITLY states "WE ARE DOING THIS BECAUSE WE HATE BLACKS, GAYS, ETC"

Which is funny..because all I hear from you cucks is that Democrats are racist....as if wanting to protect voting rights, civil rights, expand Medicare and Social Security are all racist 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.

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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

But I see you still haven't refuted a single thing I said yet...

You whining about your personal feelings are just the musings of a bitch....

Refute these facts

What facts?

You're traveling us all back in time to 1964 and telling us how we would have voted then to try to prove that we are racists NOW because we don't think this pile-of-shit legislation is constitutional on its face.

Your whole premise is bullshit.

It’s always a woot how these lefties always pin the actions of Democrats on modern day conservatives.

It's always hoot how not a single one of you can refute a single thing I said yet....

Conservatives have been opposed to every emancipation effort made by every historically oppressed minority group....

Be it women.....blacks....gays....etc.....


So here is your chance....can you cite for me a policy that was advanced by "conservatives" as it pertains to gay rights??


I'll wait

 

[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....

FUCK YOU!!! How fucking dare you post about Goldwater then LIE about Conservatives and Vietnam!!

Biff has such keen clairvoyance that he can take you back to a time before you were born and tell you what opinions you would have had back then, based solely on your skin color or your assumed political leanings. He is quite the wizard.

He forgets democrats fought a war to keep their slaves, fought against Civil Rights, were the party of Jim Crow and the KKK and thinks he can blame Conservatives for his Party's sins

There is a reason cucks like you can't refute a single thing I said....

Why did Thurmond oppose his own party's Democratic candidate because of the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Act?? Because he was liberal??

Again.....only morons make such childish arguments.....

Here's one for you to refute that is similar to your bullshit arguments.

Biff is an asshole.

Refute it.

 

[theHawk]

So here is your chance....can you cite for me a policy that was advanced by "conservatives" as it pertains to gay rights??

Can you name one right that gays don’t have that heterosexuals do?

 

[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.

I don't have to.....

Racists themselves believe these laws are VITAL to them maintaining power...

No, there are no laws that states "blacks can't vote" -- you conservatives lost that battle 60 years ago....

Now the laws must be as Lee Atwater said -- more abstract.....to where the end result hurts blacks more than whites...

Like how in Texas they tried to restrict voting on Sundays because of the well known fact that black churches do "Souls to the Polls" on Sundays...

And when they were called out on it -- they lied and claimed it was a mistake.....

"A key Texas Republican blamed a typographical error for a controversial provision of the restrictive voting bill that failed to pass over the weekend, saying Tuesday that he intends to eliminate limits on Sunday morning voting from the proposal. state Rep. Travis Clardy, a Republican on the Elections Committee, said Tuesday on NPR. "That was not intended to be reduced. I think there was a — you know, call it a mistake if you want."

Texas Republican blames typo for proposed Sunday voting limits

While debating the bill, Republicans defended the provision as necessary. Democrats argued that it was an effort to suppress the Black vote and "souls to the polls."

www.nbcnews.com

You can play dumb with someone else -- I ain't the one to play those gaslighting games with...I back up everything I say

So in other words you’re full of shit, and there are no laws that restrict people from voting based on the color of their skin.

Thanks for proving my point.

It is already against the law to use the letter of the law to discriminate against people based on race -- but it is definitely possible to try to place voting restrictions on people in the hopes that minority voters are the most adversely affected...I understand you morons think a discriminatory bill is only racist if it IMPLICITLY states "WE ARE DOING THIS BECAUSE WE HATE BLACKS, GAYS, ETC"

Which is funny..because all I hear from you cucks is that Democrats are racist....as if wanting to protect voting rights, civil rights, expand Medicare and Social Security are all racist policies...

In other words you can’t provide one example of a current law or a proposed law that discriminates against blacks.

The laws Republicans are proposing prevent mass voter fraud, as mail-in ballots are the primary way cheating in elections is achieved.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm still waiting for you to refute my Biff is an asshole argument.

I guess I will be waiting forever because that's about the standard. You're calling everybody racist xenohomomorphs and asking us to refute it.