Police for me, not for thee

[Grand Mal]

Which 'liberals' of today hold those views you quoted? They would apply more to Conservatives, those who want to 'conserve' the rights and freedoms people have fought for over the centuries.

Every liberal holds liberal views. That's how you know they're liberals. If they don't hold liberal views, they're not liberals. This isn't rocket surgery.
Those people who fought for rights and freedoms? They were liberals too, and when they were fighting for rights and freedoms it was conservatives they fought against, all down the line. That's still how it is. Liberal's fought against conservatives for gay rights and drug law reforms and the next fight is just shaping up, assisted suicide. Liberal's will fight for that right, conservatives will resist it, same as it's ever been. Every time liberals get into power they spend most of their time ****-canning bad laws, laws put in place by conservatives.
Don't confuse 'the left' with liberalism. I'm learning that liberals are either kind of rare in the USA or pretty silent. You guys need a third party. Here, Canada, we have the Liberal Party which is drifting too far left as we speak, the Conservative Party for the hidebound law-loving reactionaries and the NDP (New Democratic Party) which gives a place where the further left faction can console each other and make a vegetarian lasagna for the group.
I hope this helps. If you're going to participate in political discussions you should know the basics of political ideology.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Every liberal holds liberal views. That's how you know they're liberals. If they don't hold liberal views, they're not liberals. This isn't rocket surgery.
Those people who fought for rights and freedoms? They were liberals too, and when they were fighting for rights and freedoms it was conservatives they fought against, all down the line. That's still how it is. Liberal's fought against conservatives for gay rights and drug law reforms and the next fight is just shaping up, assisted suicide. Liberal's will fight for that right, conservatives will resist it, same as it's ever been. Every time liberals get into power they spend most of their time ****-canning bad laws, laws put in place by conservatives.
Don't confuse 'the left' with liberalism. I'm learning that liberals are either kind of rare in the USA or pretty silent. You guys need a third party. Here, Canada, we have the Liberal Party which is drifting too far left as we speak, the Conservative Party for the hidebound law-loving reactionaries and the NDP (New Democratic Party) which gives a place where the further left faction can console each other and make a vegetarian lasagna for the group.
I hope this helps. If you're going to participate in political discussions you should know the basics of political ideology.

What we have learned from this is that people are either falsely calling themselves 'liberal' or it can mean anything we want it to mean, and will take credit for anything they feel might be a 'liberal' policy.

One of the greatest historical figures whose legacy lives on today (and should be better celebrated) is William Wilberforce a thorough conservative who, possibly more than anyone else, helped end the international slave trade. But you'll not recognize him as a conservative because he doesn't fit in with your definition. Conservatives, who want equal rights for everyone, will instead be cast as those not wanting these rights, despite their creds. I think they've come to accept that and ignore those who fancy themselves as 'liberals' whose liberalism only extends to the fashions of the day and not to its relation to history or the long term consequences of their actions.
William Wilberforce - Wikipedia.

 

[Glitch]

Thus is the ultimate fate of all Democrat-controlled sh*tholes.

 

[Glitch]

What we have learned from this is that people are either falsely calling themselves 'liberal' or it can mean anything we want it to mean, and will take credit for anything they feel might be a 'liberal' policy.

One of the greatest historical figures whose legacy lives on today (and should be better celebrated) is William Wilberforce a thorough conservative who, possibly more than anyone else, helped end the international slave trade. But you'll not recognize him as a conservative because he doesn't fit in with your definition. Conservatives, who want equal rights for everyone, will instead be cast as those not wanting these rights, despite their creds. I think they've come to accept that and ignore those who fancy themselves as 'liberals' whose liberalism only extends to the fashions of the day and not to its relation to history or the long term consequences of their actions.
William Wilberforce - Wikipedia.

One thing you apparently are not aware about the Democratic Party is that they like to take words and twist their meaning. "Liberal" is a fine example, and "Progressive" is another. No Democrat has ever been "liberal" or "progressive" by any definition, just the opposite. They began calling themselves "liberal" during the late-1950s and early-1960s in a desperate attempt to shake off the socialist label they acquired since the 1930s. By the 1990s they realized that nobody was buying their "liberal" propaganda so they suddenly became "progressives."

The irony is that the real Progressive Party that existed from the 1890s until the 1930s were entirely former Republicans, including former President Theodore Roosevelt. Democrat "progressives" today pretending to be former Republican conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt is laughable on its face. All one has to do is look at the policies these so-called "progressives" put forward to know them as being regressive fascists seeking to infringe on the liberty of the people.

Not to worry. In another decade or so the Democrat filth with find another word they can try to redefine in order to spread their fascist propaganda.

William Wilberforce is to England what Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are to the US. It was President Jefferson who stopped the importation of slaves into the US in 1809, long before England abolished slavery. And of course it was Abraham Lincoln that abolished slavery in the US in 1863, 30 years after Wilberforce. However, you could still own slaves in England until 1997. The English law Wilberforce enacted exempted slaves in "the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company." That portion of the Act was not removed until 1997.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

One thing you apparently are not aware about the Democratic Party is that they like to take words and twist their meaning. "Liberal" is a fine example, and "Progressive" is another. No Democrat has ever been "liberal" or "progressive" by any definition, just the opposite. They began calling themselves "liberal" during the late-1950s and early-1960s in a desperate attempt to shake off the socialist label they acquired since the 1930s. By the 1990s they realized that nobody was buying their "liberal" propaganda so they suddenly became "progressives."

The irony is that the real Progressive Party that existed from the 1890s until the 1930s were entirely former Republicans, including former President Theodore Roosevelt. Democrat "progressives" today pretending to be former Republican conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt is laughable on its face. All one has to do is look at the policies these so-called "progressives" put forward to know them as being regressive fascists seeking to infringe on the liberty of the people.

Not to worry. In another decade or so the Democrat filth with find another word they can try to redefine in order to spread their fascist propaganda.

William Wilberforce is to England what Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are to the US. It was President Jefferson who stopped the importation of slaves into the US in 1809, long before England abolished slavery. And of course it was Abraham Lincoln that abolished slavery in the US in 1863, 30 years after Wilberforce. However, you could still own slaves in England until 1997. The English law Wilberforce enacted exempted slaves in "the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company." That portion of the Act was not removed until 1997.

What's interesting also is that the statues the rioters are wanting removed are almost all Democrats, and that's also true of Princeton wanting to remove any traces of Woodrow Wilson from their university. One of the few racist names they allow to remain on buildings is that of Robert Byrd, but that's probably because he's too recent and the gushing eulogies by Biden and Bill Clinton would be too embarrassing.

 

[Anthony60]

You're the one playing BS games, as per usual. You're using a completely unproven quote.

Did LBJ Say 'I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years'?



You don't think anyone here sees through you ignorant passive-aggressive rants? Damn! You're incapable of even being able to follow a simple conversation in which you were directly involved for Christ's sake. What you can't seem to get through your head that there was a Democrat Southern Bloc that was opposed to anything dealing with civil rights for black people in this country. That Southern Bloc is what initially prevented a cloture for ending the filibuster. Republicans did help, Northern Republicans that is, but Democrats like Johnson played key roles that without which it may not have succeeded. No one is going to argue that Johnson was not a crass and vulgar Southern politician who often spoke just like one and he didn't exactly buck but even embraced the Jim Crow politics of the South in order to secure his ambitions to accede to higher office. But he did have a secret. A promise to himself that if he was ever to find himself in position of power he would use that power to an end the post Civil War racist inequality of the South and bring it kicking and screaming to being more in step with the modern world. And trust me if I ever wanted to save anything for low information types I'll will be keeping you in mind.

I don’t really care about your little heart warming story about a racist Democrat and his little promise to himself. Democrats did all they could to block the bill. End of story.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap

 

[Glitch]

What's interesting also is that the statues the rioters are wanting removed are almost all Democrats, and that's also true of Princeton wanting to remove any traces of Woodrow Wilson from their university. One of the few racist names they allow to remain on buildings is that of Robert Byrd, but that's probably because he's too recent and the gushing eulogies by Biden and Bill Clinton would be too embarrassing.

It was the Democrats who erected the Confederate statues to traitors in the first place between 1920 and 1948. Let's not forget than Dixiecrat Sen. Fulbright was Slick Willy's mentor and Sen. "KKK" Byrd was Hillary's mentor. Which is damn inconvenient for those Democrats who are trying to pretend their long history of violent bigotry is somehow in their distant past.

 

[Ahlevah]

The OP is not in the discussion about the meaning of 'liberal' or 'liberalism'. You are. The word liberal doesn't even appear in the OP.

The inference you're supposed to make in the OP's post is the philosophy and policies of Democratic liberalism comprise a massive failure when it comes to the condition of the cities they've run for decades. He's right.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I don’t really care about your little heart warming story about a racist Democrat and his little promise to himself. Democrats did all they could to block the bill. End of story.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap

Southern White Segregationist Democrats did all they could to block the bill. But in the end Johnson prevailed. Johnson did what Kennedy could not have done if he had still been alive. Even Georgia Senator Richard Russell, a leading proponent of the filibuster, acknowledged that. When you only know half the story your commentaries are doomed to coming off as being half-assed. You're right Johnson was a racist. He was a product of the environment in which he was raised. But he managed to rise above it to do what he knew to be right.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

It was the Democrats who erected the Confederate statues to traitors in the first place between 1920 and 1948. Let's not forget than Dixiecrat Sen. Fulbright was Slick Willy's mentor and Sen. "KKK" Byrd was Hillary's mentor. Which is damn inconvenient for those Democrats who are trying to pretend their long history of violent bigotry is somehow in their distant past.

They've tried to disassociate themselves from their past by claiming that somewhere along the line the Democrats became Republicans and Republicans became Democrats, thereby switching party histories. This is quite a slick way to eradicate their racist past but they can never quite pull it off because their racist present keeps giving the game away.

And of course Hillary Clinton has never had any scruples. Hard to believe she came so close to the Presidency. Why Is Hillary Clinton Still Honoring A Segregationist And Anti-Semite?

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Southern White Segregationists Democrats did all they could to block the bill. But in the end Johnson prevailed. Johnson did what Kennedy could not have done if he had still been alive. Even Georgia Senator Richard Russell, a leading proponent of the filibuster, acknowledged that. When you only know half the story your commentaries are doomed to coming off as being half-assed. You're right Johnson was a racist. He was a product of the environment in which he was raised. But he managed to rise above it to do what he knew to be right.

It's agreed he was a racist, and his support for the Civil Rights Act, which began with Eisenhower, was all political, not through any goodness of his heart. His racist remarks related to his political ambitions for himself and the Democratic Party are all very evident and well documented.

 

[Atomic Kid]

One thing you apparently are not aware about the Democratic Party is that they like to take words and twist their meaning. "Liberal" is a fine example, and "Progressive" is another. No Democrat has ever been "liberal" or "progressive" by any definition, just the opposite. They began calling themselves "liberal" during the late-1950s and early-1960s in a desperate attempt to shake off the socialist label they acquired since the 1930s. By the 1990s they realized that nobody was buying their "liberal" propaganda so they suddenly became "progressives."

The irony is that the real Progressive Party that existed from the 1890s until the 1930s were entirely former Republicans, including former President Theodore Roosevelt. Democrat "progressives" today pretending to be former Republican conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt is laughable on its face. All one has to do is look at the policies these so-called "progressives" put forward to know them as being regressive fascists seeking to infringe on the liberty of the people.

Not to worry. In another decade or so the Democrat filth with find another word they can try to redefine in order to spread their fascist propaganda.

William Wilberforce is to England what Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are to the US. It was President Jefferson who stopped the importation of slaves into the US in 1809, long before England abolished slavery. And of course it was Abraham Lincoln that abolished slavery in the US in 1863, 30 years after Wilberforce. However, you could still own slaves in England until 1997. The English law Wilberforce enacted exempted slaves in "the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company." That portion of the Act was not removed until 1997.

Jefferson discovered that the forced breeding of slaves was quite profitable and made the importation of them unnecessary.

“I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm, what she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.” Thomas Jefferson

 

[Atomic Kid]

View attachment 67286195

Thus is the ultimate fate of all Democrat-controlled sh*tholes.

Why do you insist on playing such childish deflection games. Posting a picture of a single dilapidated house as being representative of entire city. Here's Detroit today.

View attachment 67286227

 

[Atomic Kid]

It's agreed he was a racist, and his support for the Civil Rights Act, which began with Eisenhower, was all political, not through any goodness of his heart. His racist remarks related to his political ambitions for himself and the Democratic Party are all very evident and well documented.

It was not all political at all. Every politician has to play the game to some extent to get into positions of higher authority. Eisenhower showed little enthusiasm for Civil Rights. Johnson played a key role in getting Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights bill passed. Johnson grew up in poverty. He remembered the discrimination, the shaming, and open shunning of his father. It profoundly affected him. One of his first jobs was as a teacher/administrator in a very poor Southern Texan town with a heavy Mexican population and he remembered how bright eyed and eager those kids were coming in to learn when they first arrived. Then he watched that light disappear one by one from their eyes as they began to encounter the cold reality of a world that hated and shunned them simply because of the color of their skin. He believed that discrimination was a self-destructive bane. Not just socially, but economically and educationally,and that it only served to perpetuate and prolong poverty and injustice. His 'Great Society' legislative initiative against poverty was a reflection of his dedication to helping the poor because he held the belief that helping the least of us serves to lift up all of us. Yes, Johnson grew up as a racist. But he rose above that to be the President of all the people and not just some of the people. Unlike Donald Trump who is incapable of enlightenment and change and only caters to his 'base'.

How LBJ Saved the Civil Rights Act - The Atlantic

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

It was not all political at all. Every politician has to play the game to some extent to get into positions of higher authority. Eisenhower showed little enthusiasm for Civil Rights. Johnson played a key role in getting Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights bill passed. Johnson grew up in poverty. He remembered the discrimination, the shaming, and open shunning of his father. It profoundly affected him. One of his first jobs was as a teacher/administrator in a very poor Southern Texan town with a heavy Mexican population and he remembered how bright eyed and eager those kids were coming in to learn when they first arrived. Then he watched that light disappear one by one from their eyes as they began to encounter the cold reality of a world that hated and shunned them simply because of the color of their skin. He believed that discrimination was a self-destructive bane. Not just socially, but economically and educationally,and that it only served to perpetuate and prolong poverty and injustice. His 'Great Society' legislative initiative against poverty was a reflection of his dedication to helping the poor because he held the belief that helping the least of us serves to lift up all of us. Yes, Johnson grew up as a racist. But he rose above that to be the President of all the people and not just some of the people. Unlike Donald Trump who is incapable of enlightenment and change and only caters to his 'base'.

How LBJ Saved the Civil Rights Act - The Atlantic

Eisenhower showed little enthusiasm for Civil Rights???

"The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first federal civil rights legislation passed by the United States Congress since the Civil Rights Act of 1875". Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Wikipedia

Eisenhower did this with no political pressure at all. It was his own initiative and was only under pressure from the Democrats to not act.

This is one of the most important speeches in US history but is seldom made available and, likely, never heard in the education system, despite its very clear relevance today. I really encourage you, and anyone interested in the law, civil rights, and history, to listen to it to the end. President Eisenhower Speech on Little Rock | C-SPAN.org

 

[Atomic Kid]

Eisenhower showed little enthusiasm for Civil Rights???

"The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first federal civil rights legislation passed by the United States Congress since the Civil Rights Act of 1875". Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Wikipedia

Eisenhower did this with no political pressure at all. It was his own initiative and was only under pressure from the Democrats to not act.

This is one of the most important speeches in US history but is seldom made available and, likely, never heard in the education system, despite its very clear relevance today. I really encourage you, and anyone interested in the law, civil rights, and history, to listen to it to the end. President Eisenhower Speech on Little Rock | C-SPAN.org

You obviously didn't read through the Wikipedia page. Or if you did you failed to somehow understand and comprehend the contents. Two passages from it.

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable. Southern Democratic senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees because of their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democratic Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, who drastically altered the bill. Democratic Senator Richard Russell, Jr., of Georgia had denounced the bill as an example of the federal government seeking to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill as well as recognition from the anti-civil rights Democrats for weakening the bill so much as to make it toothless.[

Although the Act's passage seemed to indicate a growing federal commitment to the cause of civil rights, the legislation was limited. Alterations to the bill made the Act difficult to enforce; by 1960, black voting had increased by only 3%. Its passage showed varying degrees of willingness to support civil rights. The Act restricted itself to protecting participation in federal elections.

Martin Luther King Jr., then 28, was a developing leader in the Civil Rights Movement and spoke out against white supremacists. Segregationists had burned black churches, which were centers of education and organizing for voter registration, and physically attacked black activists, including women. King sent a telegram to Eisenhower to make a speech to the South and asked him to use "the weight of your great office to point out to the people of the South the moral nature of the problem." Eisenhower responded, "I don't know what another speech would do about the thing right now."

Disappointed, King sent another telegram to Eisenhower stating that the latter's comments were "a profound disappointment to the millions of Americans of goodwill, north and south, who earnestly are looking to you for leadership and guidance in this period of inevitable social change." He tried to set up a meeting with the President but was given a two-hour meeting with Vice President Richard Nixon. It is reported that Nixon was impressed with King and told Eisenhower that he might enjoy meeting King late

And BTW, it took weeks for Ike to realize that he could not allow mob rule to overrule the decisions of our courts. And he always maintained that he had sent troops to Little Rock to enforce a court order, not to compel desegregation.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

You obviously didn't read through the Wikipedia page. Or if you did you failed to somehow understand and comprehend the contents. Two passages from it.
And BTW, it took weeks for Ike to realize that he could not allow mob rule to overrule the decisions of our courts. And he always maintained that he had sent troops to Little Rock to enforce a court order, not to compel desegregation.

Of course I read it.

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable.

Ergo, it was political considerations. LBJ did not initiate anything but realized that the courts and the law had to be recognized.

I don't know your sources but you should have watched Eisenhower's speech.

 

[Glitch]

Jefferson discovered that the forced breeding of slaves was quite profitable and made the importation of them unnecessary.

“I consider a woman who brings a child every two years as more profitable than the best man of the farm, what she produces is an addition to the capital, while his labors disappear in mere consumption.” Thomas Jefferson

Actually, President Jefferson abolished the importation of slaves into the US in 1809 because the 20-year time period allotted to the States by the US Constitution under Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the US Constitution had expired:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the breeding of slaves. So much for your grasp of history.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Actually, President Jefferson abolished the importation of slaves into the US in 1809 because the 20-year time period allotted to the States by the US Constitution under Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the US Constitution had expired:


It had absolutely nothing to do with the breeding of slaves. So much for your grasp of history.

Incorrect.1809 was the earliest date permitted by the Constitution for the termination of the importation of slaves. Jefferson, who had a very strong interest in mathematics, in a letter to George Washington in which he had tabulated the agricultural profits and losses of his plantation in 1792 said that by his calculations he was making a 4% profit in the birth of black children. He wrote; "I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” His plantation was providing him with an inexhaustible supply of human assets. He implored friends and family to "invest in negros". Advising them if they had any cash left; "every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.”

The domestic slave trade inside the US was not affected by the 1807 law. Indeed the termination of imported slaves substantially increased the importance and the value of the domestic slave trade market. Having a grasp of history means having the ability to understand that things are almost never just simply black and white. There are shades of grey in between. People have flaws and so our history is bound to have flaws. It is right for us to remember, commemorate, and honor Founding Fathers such as Jefferson and Washington as heroes for the contributions they made in the creation of our democratic republic. But at the same time we need to remember the flaws and some hard truths in order to have a better and more complete understanding of them and the times in which they lived and how that affects us to this day and hopefully have a better sense of direction as to where we are going and what we need to do to get to where we want to go.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Of course I read it.

The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, as southern Democrats opposed civil rights, and its northern members were more favorable.

Ergo, it was political considerations. LBJ did not initiate anything but realized that the courts and the law had to be recognized.

I don't know your sources but you should have watched Eisenhower's speech.

Maybe you should have listened to, and not just watched, Eisenhower's speech. He made it exceeding clear that the sole purpose of his executive order sending troops to Little Rock was uphold and enforce a federal court order. And not to assist in the implementation of desegregation.

Now let me make it very clear that Federal troops are not being used to relieve local and state authorities of their primary duty to preserve the peace and order of the community. Nor are the troops there for the purpose of taking over the responsibility of the School Board and the other responsible local officials in running Central High School. The running of our school system and the maintenance of peace and order in each of our States are strictly local affairs and the Federal Government does not interfere except in very special cases and when requested by one of the several States. In the present case the troops are there, pursuant to law, solely for the purpose of preventing interference with the orders of the Court.

He never even mentions civil rights at all except vaguely in the context of the UN charter for "human rights". Matter of fact even he makes something of a disclaimer in that speech. "Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear." Heck, he couldn't even bring himself say that it was Black Americans or even negroes that were primarily being affected by the events in Arkansas. Instead he appears to be much more concerned about how America's enemies may be using the events in Arkansas to tarnish America's world image.

In the South, as elsewhere, citizens are keenly aware of the tremendous disservice that has been done to the people of Arkansas in the eyes of the nation, and that has been done to the nation in the eyes of the world. At a time when we face grave situations abroad because of the hatred that Communism bears toward a system of government based on human rights, it would be difficult to exaggerate the harm that is being done to the prestige and influence, and indeed to the safety, of our nation and the world.

Our enemies are gloating over this incident and using it everywhere to misrepresent our whole nation. We are portrayed as a violator of those standards of conduct which the peoples of the world united to proclaim in the Charter of the United Nations. There, they affirmed "faith in fundamental human rights" and "in the dignity and worth of the human person" and they did so "without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Maybe you should have listened to, and not just watched, Eisenhower's speech. He made it exceeding clear that the sole purpose of his executive order sending troops to Little Rock was uphold and enforce a federal court order. And not to assist in the implementation of desegregation.

You're now pretending to have watched that speech or you would never have said that.

He never even mentions civil rights at all except vaguely in the context of the UN charter for "human rights". Matter of fact even he makes something of a disclaimer in that speech. "Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear." Heck, he couldn't even bring himself say that it was Black Americans or even negroes that were primarily being affected by the events in Arkansas. Instead he appears to be much more concerned about how America's enemies may be using the events in Arkansas to tarnish America's world image.

In fact he even mentions Women's Right's as well as Black Americans and is touching many bases in order to bolster his position. Your stubbornness to protect your beliefs is not doing much good

 

[Atomic Kid]

You're now pretending to have watched that speech or you would never have said that.In fact he even mentions Women's Right's as well as Black Americans and is touching many bases in order to bolster his position. Your stubbornness to protect your beliefs is not doing much good

WTF does women's rights even remotely have to do with Eisenhower's Little Rock speech? Fact is Eisenhower never once utters the words "civil rights" in the course of that entire speech. Your willful ignorance is blinding you to an uncomfortable truth.

 

[Atomic Kid]

You're now pretending to have watched that speech or you would never have said that.

I've listened to it and read the transcript and I strongly suggest that you do the same. Because it's apparently obvious that you really haven't.

 

[Anthony60]

Southern White Segregationist Democrats did all they could to block the bill. But in the end Johnson prevailed. Johnson did what Kennedy could not have done if he had still been alive. Even Georgia Senator Richard Russell, a leading proponent of the filibuster, acknowledged that. When you only know half the story your commentaries are doomed to coming off as being half-assed. You're right Johnson was a racist. He was a product of the environment in which he was raised. But he managed to rise above it to do what he knew to be right.

You want to know a dark little secret about Democrats? They didn't care about freeing slaves and civil rights, they cared about votes. They'd filibuster that same bill today, with Schumer leading the way, if they thought it would help them gain power. They'd mount machine guns at the boarder if they thought illegals would vote Republican. It's not about right or wrong with them, it's getting power and keeping it.

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

WTF does women's rights even remotely have to do with Eisenhower's Little Rock speech? Fact is Eisenhower never once utters the words "civil rights" in the course of that entire speech. Your willful ignorance is blinding you to an uncomfortable truth.

It was part of the speech you never watched in which he wanted freedom for all Americans, including women. It was a sign that he was well ahead of his time and well ahead of the Feminist movement.