America’s Only Black Senator Not Invited To MLK Event Because He’s A Republican…

[mac]

Wrong once again - 19 Republicans in the House voted Nay on the 1957 Civil Rights Bill. All of the Dems in Maryland and West Virginia voted Aye on the bill. 4 Dems and 5 Repubs voted "Present" HR 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. PASSED. YEA SUPPORTS PRESIDENT'S POSITION. -- GovTrack.us

Sorry, I meant to write "no republican in the senate". And I wasn't wrong the last time, which I illustrated.

 

[Somerville]

sorry, i meant to write "no republican in the senate". And i wasn't wrong the last time, which i illustrated.

roflmao!

 

[mac]

roflmao!

You can do whatever you want with it...history doesn't lie. Up to 1964, Republicans were far more supportive of civil rights than Democrats. That simple.

 

[Somerville]

You can do whatever you want with it...history doesn't lie. Up to 1964, Republicans were far more supportive of civil rights than Democrats. That simple.

More correctly - SOME Republicans were far more supportive of civil rights than SOME Democrats. There were social liberals in both parties and there were social conservatives in both parties.

 

[mac]

More correctly - SOME Republicans were far more supportive of civil rights than SOME Democrats. There were social liberals in both parties and there were social conservatives in both parties.

Even more accurately...far more Republicans than Democrats were supportive of civil rights for far longer.

 

[Threegoofs]

And this is flawed, as opposition was not defined solely by regional attribution.

I wonder what Lyndon Johnson meant, then, after he signed the Civil Rights Act when he said " I (referring to Democrats) fear we have lost the South for a generation"?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

They don't refute anything, you're seperating one party into two and treating them as seperate entities in order to fullfill a flawed assesment.

No, I'm showing the specifics of how things were delineated... and NOT taking a complex issue an simplifying it to the point that it's meaningless.

The numbers you offered are irrelvant, and evident of a very superficial analysis.

No, my numbers do the opposite. They are a much more thorough analysis. You think they are superficial because they prove you wrong.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I have agreed with you that racist attitudes were more prevelant in the south and Southern Democrats. Where I have refuted you, successfully, is in your claim that it was absent in Northern Democrats or that Northern Democrats found civil rights important enough to risk party unity. You've done nothing to challenge that, but rahter have attempted to avoid that discussion.

You have not refuted my position in any way, shape, or form. You have failed to do so and failed to refute the numbers I have provided. I showed how Northern Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in GREATER percentages than Northern Republicans. You keep running into this fact and keep ignoring it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The context of regionalism does not define the issue in anyone's mind but yours.

And ignoring the context of regionalism is only something to be dismissed in your mind.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And this is flawed, as opposition was not defined solely by regional attribution.

Of course it was, as I showed. You have STILL failed to do anything to refute the numbers I presented.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

To illustrate how offbase you are...back it up a few years to 1957 where No republican voted nay...including from states such as Maryland, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

Let's see the FULL numbers from 1957, mac.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Well I took a look at the full numbers. Very interesting. Guess what? Know how many Northern Democrats in The House voted against the Act? ZERO. Know how many Northern Republicans in The House voted against the Act? FOURTEEN. Wanna know how many House Southern Democrats Voted for the Act? Seventeen. And how many House Republicans voted for the Act? Eleven. Now, in this case, considering the overall numbers, I would venture to guess that a higher percentage of House Republicans in the South voted for the Act than House Democrats in the South. However, in the North, from a percentage standpoint, House Democrats DESTROYED House Republicans in support for the Act.

So, even in 1957, mac is wrong.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

And your failure on this issue continues. You have done nothing to refute what I said about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because you can't.

Can you then explain why the majority of Democrats voted Nay on the 1957 Civil Rights Act after Senator James Eastland(D-Mi) slashed and marked it in Committee?

"Committee heads have great powers in changing bills and altering them almost beyond recognition. Eastland did just this especially after the very public outburst by Senator Richard Russell from Georgia who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states, thus weakening highly protected states rights of self-government as stated in the Constitution. He was most critical of the new division which would be created within the Justice Department."​

Can you also explain why Sen. John F. Kennedy(D-Ma) and Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson(D-Tx) voted NAY?

"The African American community were divided with regards to the bill. University professor, Ralph Bunche, saw the bill as a sham and stated that he would have preferred no act at all rather than the 1957 Act. However, Bayard Rustin of CORE, believed that it was important because of its symbolism - the first civil rights legislation for 82 years."​

Quotes taken from:
The 1957 Civil Rights Act

While you parse and discuss the merit of LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Eisenhower and the Republican Party were instrumental in changing the face of this nation despite the machinations of Southern Democrats. The Democrats at the time were furious and tried their underhanded tricks to dilute and kill the Bill.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Can you then explain why the majority of Democrats voted Nay on the 1957 Civil Rights Act after Senator James Eastland(D-Mi) slashed and marked it in Committee? "Committee heads have great powers in changing bills and altering them almost beyond recognition. Eastland did just this especially after the very public outburst by Senator Richard Russell from Georgia who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states, thus weakening highly protected states rights of self-government as stated in the Constitution. He was most critical of the new division which would be created within the Justice Department." Can you also explain why Sen. John F. Kennedy(D-Ma) and Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson(D-Tx) voted NAY?

"The African American community were divided with regards to the bill. University professor, Ralph Bunche, saw the bill as a sham and stated that he would have preferred no act at all rather than the 1957 Act. However, Bayard Rustin of CORE, believed that it was important because of its symbolism - the first civil rights legislation for 82 years."

Quotes taken from:
The 1957 Civil Rights Act

While you parse and discuss the merit of LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ike and the Republican Party were instrumental in changing the face of this nation despite the machinations of Southern Democrats.

I already destroyed this post in the post JUST above it. :lol: You really should pay attention. No House Northern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. FOURTEEN House Northern Republicans voted against it. Can you explain THAT?

 

[mac]

I wonder what Lyndon Johnson meant, then, after he signed the Civil Rights Act when he said " I (referring to Democrats) fear we have lost the South for a generation"?

Did you see me say the south wasn't racist?

 

[mac]

No, I'm showing the specifics of how things were delineated... and NOT taking a complex issue an simplifying it to the point that it's meaningless.

No, my numbers do the opposite. They are a much more thorough analysis. You think they are superficial because they prove you wrong.

You have not refuted my position in any way, shape, or form. You have failed to do so and failed to refute the numbers I have provided. I showed how Northern Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in GREATER percentages than Northern Republicans. You keep running into this fact and keep ignoring it.

And ignoring the context of regionalism is only something to be dismissed in your mind.

Of course it was, as I showed. You have STILL failed to do anything to refute the numbers I presented.

Let's see the FULL numbers from 1957, mac.

What you are doing is sperating one party into two and treating them as if they were seperate parties. You're ignoring the racism in the Democrat party up to that point and you're ignoring that lack of will in the Northern Democrats to stand against the Southern Democrats on matters of civil rights.

Well I took a look at the full numbers. Very interesting. Guess what? Know how many Northern Democrats in The House voted against the Act? ZERO. Know how many Northern Republicans in The House voted against the Act? FOURTEEN. Wanna know how many House Southern Democrats Voted for the Act? Seventeen. And how many House Republicans voted for the Act? Eleven. Now, in this case, considering the overall numbers, I would venture to guess that a higher percentage of House Republicans in the South voted for the Act than House Democrats in the South. However, in the North, from a percentage standpoint, House Democrats DESTROYED House Republicans in support for the Act.

So, even in 1957, mac is wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. In the 1957 Civil rights act, more Republicans than Democrats supported the bill (by a huge margin), also, the bill was chopped and edited by southerners (mostly) to make it a bill both southerns and northerners would vote for. Again, yes, while southerners were more strongly against civil rights, northern Democrats did nothing (or at least very little) to alter that, and had quite the history of disenfranchisement themselves.

It's simply ludicrous to claim that the Democratic Party was more supportive of Civil rights than Republicans.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

I already destroyed this post in the post JUST above it. :lol: You really should pay attention. No House Northern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. FOURTEEN House Northern Republicans voted against it. Can you explain THAT?

Pointing out that 14 Republican Congressmen voted "No" is inconsequential to fact when the majority of Republicans vote "Yea" in Congress especially after LBJ and Eastland ripped the guts out of the bill. Unless you can point out any nefarious action by those 14 Congressmen. I make the claim that you are parsing and attempting to obfuscate the racial bigotry of Democrats on a whole in discriminating against Afro-Americans on a national basis.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Funny how I did not say that. I asked why a liberal group, pushing a political message as part of an event they are sponsoring, would invite a conservative to speak? I am sure Senator Scott can support the event or not as he chooses. I also do not think Senator Scott is somehow due an invitation to speak at a liberal event simply because he is black.

A political message? Nothing surprising from your post though; typical. :yawn:

Steve Klein, a spokesman for the King Center, said “it was kind of wonderful” when the announcement was made.

He said the goal for the commemoration is to “involve everyone,” and the way the center is attempting to do that is by leading a global bell ringing. At 3 p.m., bells will ring at the Lincoln Memorial and churches around the city. They will be joined by ringing bells at hundreds of other locations across the country and around the world in honor of King’s call to “let freedom ring.”

“This is designed not just for everyone who comes to Washington, but for followers, admirers of Martin Luther King all over world,” Mr. Klein said. “It’s going to be a lovely thing.”

Read more: 'Let Freedom Ring' march anniversary a global event designed for all - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

It appears everyone to you is liberals only. I'm surprised any liberal would be invited since they vote democrat, and Democrats are the party who suppressed black American rights until LBJ came along to try to get them to vote democrat for the next 200 years.

But that's not exactly how LBJ referred to black Americans now is it?

“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”

― Lyndon B. Johnson

Quote by Lyndon B. Johnson: I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for t...


Oh, and BTW, MLK was a Republican. Why?

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools.

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican | Human Events

 

[mac]

Pointing out that 14 Republican Congressmen voted "No" is inconsequential to fact when the majority of Republicans vote "Yea" in Congress especially after LBJ and Eastland ripped the guts out of the bill. Unless you can point out any nefarious action by those 14 Congressmen. I make the claim that you are parsing and attempting to obfuscate the racial bigotry of Democrats on a whole in discriminating against Afro-Americans on a national basis.

And most of those republicans voted no out of a belief that it allowed too much federal overreach, not because they opposed civil rights.

 

[Somerville]

A political message? Nothing surprising from your post though; typical. :yawn:



It appears everyone to you is liberals only. I'm surprised any liberal would be invited since they vote democrat, and Democrats are the party who suppressed black American rights until LBJ came along to try to get them to vote democrat for the next 200 years.

But that's not exactly how LBJ referred to black Americans now is it?



Quote by Lyndon B. Johnson: I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for t...


Oh, and BTW, MLK was a Republican. Why?



Why Martin Luther King Was Republican | Human Events

As with much of the 'history' promoted by the modern right, little of the above post is true.

The LBJ quote has one source, Ronald Kessler, but he has no secondary verification that the quote is true or real

MLK was not a Republican.

and

as noted way back in this thread, South Carolina's black Senator was invited to the celebration but chose not to attend.

 

[mac]

MLK was not a Republican.

Nor was he a Democrat, but his father certainly was a Republican.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

As with much of the 'history' promoted by the modern right, little of the above post is true.

The LBJ quote has one source, Ronald Kessler, but he has no secondary verification that the quote is true or real

MLK was not a Republican.

and

as noted way back in this thread, South Carolina's black Senator was invited to the celebration but chose not to attend.

Keeping your head in the sand is a great way to focus on denial.



And I guess this guy is a LBJ imposter.

 

[Somerville]

Nor was he a Democrat, but his father certainly was a Republican.

You do understand that you are admitting that your earlier statement was untrue - right? You do, don't you? And so what if an African American was a Republican in the 1920s and 30s while living in the South? Do you think he would have been accepted into Republican Party meetings in much of the North?

The Republicans of that era would not recognise the Republicans of today.

Why are you and many others continuing to use this excuse. It is rather blatant but still a failing attempt to shunt aside the racism found in much of the present day Republican Party?

 

[Threegoofs]

Hmmm. Maybe MLK's son can shed some light on this:

"It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African American votes in Florida and many other states."

MLK also excoriated the Goldwater nomination.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/08/republicans_put_up_50_mlk_bill.php

 

[Somerville]

It is a bit strange that the only King family member who says MLK was a Republican is a niece who has a rather chequered past and now is "saved" and works with Glenn Beck.

MLK was an active campaigner against Barry Goldwater during the election of 1964. Dr King is not known to have ever registered as a member of any party. During the 1960s, he was frequently attacked for "his Communist inclinations"


What a shock. LBJ, a man infamous for his foul language thru out his career using a word that was very common used at the time, particularly by white males who had grown up in the South in the 1920s and 30s. :roll: