Voting Rights, Filibuster, Conservatives & MLK

[theHawk]

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

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

Really? The GOP was founded by Christian conservative white men who opposed the Democratic Party and the institution of slavery they were fighting for.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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

A simple glance at the votes fo just about any bill will show how the demleftist vote in lockstep and republicans no so much. It will also prove that you’re an idiot.

 

[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.....

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

Biff is an asshole.

Refute it.

30 comments in and still not a single point I made has been refuted...

All I see from you...."Biff mean...me no likey him..."


Stop crying

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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

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

Really? The GOP was founded by Christian conservative white men who opposed the Democratic Party and the institution of slavery they were fighting for.

Then how come the main ones who glorify the Confederates -- you know, the side that was fighting to maintain slavery?? How come it's usually conservatives who do that??

Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"

This is why I refer to things as LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE.........that renders your little political party labels obsolete to me....

 

[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.

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.

Biden said that blacks are too dumb to get voter ID, hire a lawyer or accountant, shower AND talk

 

[theHawk]

Then how come the main ones who glorify the Confederates -- you know, the side that was fighting to maintain slavery?? How come it's usually conservatives who do that??

Glorify the Confederates? Example?

 

[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.

30 comments in and still not a single point I made has been refuted...

All I see from you...."Biff mean...me no likey him..."

View attachment 499158
Stop crying

We'll refute your name-calling arguments the minute you refute mine.

 

[theHawk]

Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"

Both are correct. It was over the state’s rights to keep slavery legal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

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

Really? The GOP was founded by Christian conservative white men who opposed the Democratic Party and the institution of slavery they were fighting for.

Then how come the main ones who glorify the Confederates -- you know, the side that was fighting to maintain slavery?? How come it's usually conservatives who do that??

Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"

This is why I refer to things as LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE.........that renders your little political party labels obsolete to me....

You live in such an either-or reality. No wonder you look at everything as black and white. LITERALLY.

 

[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

A simple glance at the votes fo just about any bill will show how the demleftist vote in lockstep and republicans no so much. It will also prove that you’re an idiot.

Cool....let's take a glance....

How about the Senate Vote on the 1957 Voting Rights Act.....

How about the vote on the House Vote on the 1964...

If by lockstep you mean the majority of "progressives" voted for the bill and the majority of "conservatives" voted against it -- you would be correct...

Can you refute this??

Is there some "alternative" vote count you saw on a meme or something?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Biff still can't prove he is not an asshole.

I win.

 

[theHawk]

30 comments in and still not a single point I made has been refuted...

30 comments and you’re still enable to show a law that restricts anyone’s right to vote based on race.

 

[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

A simple glance at the votes fo just about any bill will show how the demleftist vote in lockstep and republicans no so much. It will also prove that you’re an idiot.

Cool....let's take a glance....

How about the Senate Vote on the 1957 Voting Rights Act.....
View attachment 499163


How about the vote on the House Vote on the 1964...
View attachment 499164

If by lockstep you mean the majority of "progressives" voted for the bill and the majority of "conservatives" voted against it -- you would be correct...

Can you refute this??

Is there some "alternative" vote count you saw on a meme or something?

What you choose to call any of those people is WHOLLY irrelevant today.

Once again, you are trying to apply today's standards to those nearly 60 years ago.

Maybe that's the problem. You live in the past so much, you think all that is happing to you NOW.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"

Both are correct. It was over the state’s rights to keep slavery legal.

Yes, which means it was over slavery....

Which is why they wrote that reason into virtually every Confederate State's order of secession.....


So again......what is it with the Conservative fixation on glorifying the Confederacy??

It definitely can't be "heritage" -- unless they think something that was formed PRECISELY for maintaining slavery and only existed for 4 or 5 years represents the entirety of "southern heritage"

Boy bands have lasted longer than the Confederacy....so why the fixation?

 

[theHawk]

Boy bands have lasted longer than the Confederacy....so why the fixation

Still waiting for proof of any “fixation” for the Confederacy, other than the fact it’s part of history and shouldn’t be forgotten.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"

Both are correct. It was over the state’s rights to keep slavery legal.

Yes, which means it was over slavery....

Which is why they wrote that reason into virtually every Confederate State's order of secession.....


So again......what is it with the Conservative fixation on glorifying the Confederacy??

It definitely can't be "heritage" -- unless they think something that was formed PRECISELY for maintaining slavery and only existed for 4 or 5 years represents the entirety of "southern heritage"

Boy bands have lasted longer than the Confederacy....so why the fixation?

Who is glorifying the failed Confederacy?

I have ancestors who were conscripted into the Confederate Military. Is learning their history and the events they experience "glorifying" the Confederacy?

 

[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?

Still waiting...

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

30 comments in and still not a single point I made has been refuted...

30 comments and you’re still enable to show a law that restricts anyone’s right to vote based on race.

A law that restricts voting solely on the basis of race is already illegal....we won that fight already...

However, voting restrictions meant to target minority voters with almost surgical precision became very rampant the second the Voting Rights Act was gutted....

"In its ruling, the appeals court said the law was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. North Carolina legislators had requested data on voting patterns by race and, with that data in hand, drafted a law that would "target African-Americans with almost surgical precision," the court said."

Supreme Court Declines Republican Bid To Revive North Carolina Voter ID Law

The restrictive law was thrown out last year after a court ruled it was intentionally designed to discriminate against black people. State Republicans have tried several times to appeal.

www.npr.org

Not my words...that was a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling......

hmmmm...I wonder why...and I wonder why its CONSISTENTLY been conservative policy makers pushing these bills....it's almost as if they were against the Voting Rights Act the whole time....

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Democrats today have no problem stating that the Civil War was over slavery....only reactionary right wing cucks get triggered and say "no no no, it was over states rights!!!"

Both are correct. It was over the state’s rights to keep slavery legal.

Yes, which means it was over slavery....

Which is why they wrote that reason into virtually every Confederate State's order of secession.....


So again......what is it with the Conservative fixation on glorifying the Confederacy??

It definitely can't be "heritage" -- unless they think something that was formed PRECISELY for maintaining slavery and only existed for 4 or 5 years represents the entirety of "southern heritage"

Boy bands have lasted longer than the Confederacy....so why the fixation?

Who is glorifying the failed Confederacy?

I have ancestors who were conscripted into the Confederate Military. Is learning their history and the events they experience "glorifying" the Confederacy?

More of the passive aggressive "Let's play dumb" shit...

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Then how come the main ones who glorify the Confederates -- you know, the side that was fighting to maintain slavery?? How come it's usually conservatives who do that??

Glorify the Confederates? Example?

You do understand its a bitch move to play dumb like this right??

Opinion: The GOP is now the party of neo-Confederates

The far left and far right have long been warning about neocons taking over the Republican Party. Turns out they are right. Only the “neocons” in question aren’t the neoconservati…

www.mcall.com