Democratic Party's record on Race >>MOD EDIT<<

It's called politics. When you ignore the record and push your agenda, you use anything you can to vilify your opponent. Some believe in the constitution and some wish to circumvent it. Progressives have a history of circumventing the constitution, our dear leader PBTO is no different.

 

You're actually right here Johnny. The Republicans have NOT been "particularly helpful" to minorities in America. To be especially helpful to any particular group would be racist.

Thanks for making my point before I did!

 

you should unblock me, so you can see...

[video=youtube;y-5c5o85SGo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-5c5o85SGo[/video]

SFJEFF should listen to the lyrics too.

 

You were the one that brought up sexism- and claimed it was not a Civil Right issue.

Once again

You specifically said that discrimination against women was not a civil rights issue- let me remind you:

Originally Posted by PatriotNews
Well this was not a civil rights issue as it relates to racism, but rather sexism and ageism.


And "Claiming that Reagan advocated discrimination based on sex" is just a lie- since I never made that claim

You seem to have difficulty with this

Here is what I said

Reagan vetoed a Civil Rights Act that provided protections for women, the elderly, the handicapped and minorities. - and that is accurate

Lyndon Johnson signed Civil Rights Acts- Reagan vetoed it- showing the reversal of roles, as Democrats assumed the mantle of Civil Rights and Republicans began to oppose them.- and that is accurate also

I will point out again that Reagan was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act- as was George Bush.

 

My apologies- you are correct- here is the revised list

So on the record- how did Presidents from 1964 to present think about the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Lyndon Johnson (D)- signed the bill into law
Richard Nixon (R)- unable to find an opinion
Ford (R)- voted for the CRA
Carter (D)- was for the 1964 CRA
Reagan (R) - was against the 1964 CRA
Bush Sr (R) - was against the 1964 CRA
Clinton (D)- can't find an opinion
Bush Jr. (R) - can't find an opinion

- - - Updated - - -

Really- which are the communist leaders in the Democratic Party? This must be like those fascist leaders in the Republican Party.....

 

Great- so we are in agreement.

The majority of Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And a Democrat signed it into law.

- - - Updated - - -

It has been a republican tactic since Nixon.

 

Interesting moment in history 1964.

Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law.
His Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater voted against it.

Goldwater won his home state of Arizona- and the traditionally Democrat states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Georgia.

Hmmm what happened in 1964 that would cause traditionally Democratic States to vote Republican?

And why were those and his home state the only states that voted for Goldwater? Those Democrat Southern states all voted for Kennedy the previous election, but suddenly switched to vote Republican.

 

Good, I am glad we agree. At the last minute democrats finally climbed aboard the republican band wagon and passed civil rights bill by themselves for the first time in history then used it to lie to the populace that they were the only ones that were not racist by calling everyone else racist. It is a funny twist of history and illogical behavior but there it is. At least the democratic playbook has not changed since 64 because they still need some kind of racist faction to blame for anyone that is against their extra-constitutional activities, even if they have to make it up.

 

No, I never said it wasn't a civil rights issue. Once again, you are getting off topic. People with half a brain who understand sentence structure know that the above quote does not say sexism is not a civil rights issue.

I never said that you made the claim that Reagan advocated discrimination based on sex. I was saying that anyone who would make such a claim is silly. Once again, people who understand basic sentence structure understand this.

You keep repeating this but have not provided any evidence that this is the case. Reagan was not a politician at the time, and neither was Bush.

 

No need to apologize. LBJ kicked the black delegates out of his own nominating convention.
Can't find Nixon's opinion? That's funny. As Vice President, Nixon pushed the 1957 Civil Rights Act through the US Senate and pressed Eisenhower to sign it.

And which two senators weakened the 1957 Civil Rights Act in the Senate? Senators Lyndon Baines Johnson and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. If LBJ and JFK had not weakened it we would not have needed a 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The rest of the people on your list weren't even politicians yet, so it's safe to say they weren't in any position to support or oppose it.

Barack Obama.

Fascism is on the left of the political spectrum, not the right.

 

So its not enough that I proved that your argument is complete bulls(*)(*)(*). You want the names of every racist in the Southern states. You crack me up.

Oh, yes, the Reagan election. No, that wasn't the result of racism. That was the result of TREASON on the part of Ronald Reagan. He should have been taken out and hung. Or at the very least hauled off to prison for the rest of his life.

[video=youtube;kZqrVSGqM7M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZqrVSGqM7M[/video]

 

Free elections shall not be tolerated!

 

There we go- 1964 was a radical shift in the history of the Democratic Party- when Lyndon Johnson made the conscious decision to put African American rights ahead of party politics- knowing that pushing through the 1964 Civil Rights Act would alienate Southern voters, and ultimately lose the South to the Republican Party. And in the 1964 Presidential election- those Democratic Southern states voted Republican.

For the Republican who had voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It was the beginning of the shift regarding Civil Rights from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

And that of course is just silly right wing talking points.

And that is of course why minorities avoid the Republican Party like a leper colony

 

Glad to do so- I look forward to your rationalization.

http://www.thenation.com/article/15...il-rights-and-south-african-freedom-struggle#

Early in his political career Reagan opposed every major piece of civil rights legislation adopted by Congress, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. And even if one tries to explain away this opposition on the grounds that it came early in the history of the civil rights movement or was motivated by a misplaced reluctance to empower the federal government, Reagan’s civil rights record during his presidency is tough to justify. As President, Reagan supported tax breaks for schools that discriminated on the basis of race, opposed the extension of the Voting Rights Act, vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act and decimated the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

And George Bush Sr.?

George Bush, the man whose Presidential campaign benefited from the now notorious Willie Horton commercials, also has the distinction of having appointed the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell. He will be remembered as a President who vetoed a civil rights bill in 1990 and, if he carries through with his threat, again in 1991, while making a point of donating half the proceeds from his autobiography, "Looking Forward," to the United Negro College Fund.

But as a candidate for the Senate from Texas in 1964, Mr. Bush came out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the landmark law that ended segregated lunch counters, restrooms, movie theaters and other public accommodations, and made employment discrimination illegal. In the campaign, Mr. Bush said the law was "politically inspired and is bad legislation in that it transcends the Constitution."

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/09/w...civil-rights-there-are-two-george-bushes.html

So clearly Bush was a politician at the time. Not that that would change the fundamental facts:

Future Republican President Ronald Reagan opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Future Republican President George Bush opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
1964 Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater opposed and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Democratic President Lyndon Johnson promoted it- and signed it into law.

 

LOL- so are you ignorant regarding economic philosophies or are you delusional? Barack Obama has been a great friend to capitalists, enriching bankers, and anyone in the stock market.

Your claim that Obama is a communist just tells us volumes about who you are.

Like I said- this must be like the fascist leaders in the Republican Party.

LOL.

 

You just hate Reagan because the middle class did well he fixed the leftist messes of the 70s gave us vast military superiority and blacks closed the income gap with whites. Also the poverty rate declined. Leftists hate that!

- - - Updated - - -

Lol... Fascism is basically what you support though. Economic dictatorship from on high but with private ownership. Just like Mussolini. Big corruption!

Bottom line - there has never been a time the democrat party didnt champion laws that treat people differently based on skin color. There has never been a time the Republican Party was t pushing for more equal treatment under the law regardless of skin color. Name any year. The republicans want more equality under the law and democrats want more discrimination based on skin color.

 

Quite the history of supporting Civil Rights there.

No doubt about it- the Democratic Parties overall record of supporting Civil Rights was poor before 1964- though there are hints of it with Roosevelt and Truman, but starting in 1964 there was a sea change- the Democrats essentially wrote off the South and started supporting Civil Rights bills- bills that later Republican Presidents opposed.

- - - Updated - - -

No- I wouldn't support Fascism.

I am not a Republican.

 

Do you support Obama's economics? Then you may be a fascist. If you think he should go further left then you are a socialist. He dictates economic outcomes, picks favorite but allows private ownership. This is where the left is going these days so when thei policies fail again the can blame "the free market" and do more of the same. Take the nationalization of the home mortgage industry or health care or our energy policy or his free 800 billion cash give away, or his treatment of the Boeing dispute, etc..

 

Any idiot can put on a good show for the neighbors by taking his credit cards out and running up a lot of debts. That's what Reagan did to the tune of FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS (afi). He turned us from the worlds largest creditor nation into the world's largest debtor nation. And he put the richest country in the world on the course to become a third world nation. Funny how conservatives always long for the "good old days". You know, the way things were BEFORE Reagan!

And BTW the economic mess known as "stagflation" was caused by NIXON...

...and cured by Carter's selection of Paul Volker as Federal Reserve Chairman. The ONLY think Reagan ever did right was leave Volker in place.

Its too bad that conservatives don't really know anything about politics. It would be nice to have an intelligent conversation with one of them sometime.

 

Obama is as much a communist as Reagan was a fascist.

 

Obama is as much a fascist as Reagan was a capitalist.

 

Volker got the cover to do what had to be done in 82-83 from who? He is a monetarist you know, the guys the left is supposed to hate. Did you catch Paul's interview on Charlie rose? He thinks Obama is a train wreck economically. Volcker was always a democrat because of social issues, not his economics. I am familiar with the man, more so then you. Watch his Charlie rose interview about Obama though. You would think he is one of those crazy tea partiers
In any event these actions were taken the world over as remedy to the keynsian economics you lefties love and milton friedman pushed the reforms. Here, brazil, china the UK etc..

Nixon did price controls and wage controls and all sorts of dumb lefty stuff. Why do you think I subscribe to his economics? They are deplorable.


Anyway, volcker reigned from the obama administration because he didn't like the policies of cheap money and Special perks going to the banks that the left is tied too these days.

 

Johnson was a brilliant political animal, not necessarily one of principle and previously could never find an anti-lynching bill he could vote for. He knew a losing political hand when he saw one.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said: &#8220;These Negroes, they&#8217;re getting uppity these days. That&#8217;s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before. The political pull to back up their upityness. Now, we&#8217;ve got to do something about this. We&#8217;ve got to give them a little something. Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference. If we don&#8217;t move at all, their allies will line up against us. And there&#8217;ll be no way to stop them. It&#8217;ll be Reconstruction all over again.&#8221;

Notably, in his 4,500-word State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, Johnson mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Information about Johnson&#8217;s anemic civil rights policy positions can be found in the &#8220;Public Papers of the President, Lyndon B. Johnson,&#8221; 1965, vol. 1, p.1-9.

Yes, the public has bought into the democrat narrative that democrats were the saviors of minorities yet they were dragged into it kicking and screaming.

 

Then again also in 1965 Johnson addressed Congress

There is no cause for pride in what has happened in Selma. There is no cause for self-satisfaction in the long denial of equal rights of millions of Americans. But there is cause for hope and for faith in our democracy in what is happening here tonight.

For the cries of pain and the hymns and protests of oppressed people have summoned into convocation all the majesty of this great government, the government of the greatest nation on earth.

Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of this country: to right wrong, to do justice, to serve man.

In our time we have come to live with the moments of great crisis. Our lives have been marked with debate about great issues; issues of war and peace, issues of prosperity and depression. But rarely in any time does an issue lay bare the secret heart of America itself. Rarely are we met with a challenge, not to our growth or abundance, or our welfare or our security, but rather to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved nation.

The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such an issue. And should we defeat every enemy, and should we double our wealth and conquer the stars, and still be unequal to this issue, then we will have failed as a people and as a nation.

For with a country as with a person, "What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

There is no Negro problem. There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem. And we are met here tonight as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, we are met here as Americans to solve that problem.

This was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded with a purpose. The great phrases of that purpose still sound in every American heart, North and South: "All men are created equal", "government by consent of the governed", "give me liberty or give me death." Well, those are not just clever words, or those are not just empty theories. In their name, Americans have fought and died for two centuries, and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our liberty, risking their lives.

Those words are a promise to every citizen that he shall share in the dignity of man. This dignity cannot be found in a man's possessions. It cannot be found in his power, or in his position. It really rests on his right to be treated as a man equal in opportunity to all others. It says that he shall share in freedom, he shall choose his leaders, educate his children, provide for his family according to his ability and his merits as a human being.

To apply any other test, to deny a man his hopes because of his color or race, his religion or the place of his birth, is not only to do injustice, it is to deny America and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom.

Our fathers believed that if this noble view of the rights of man was to flourish, it must be rooted in democracy. The most basic right of all was the right to choose your own leaders. The history of this country in large measure, is the history of the expansion of that right to all of our people.

Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument. Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right.

Yet the harsh fact is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes.

Every device of which human ingenuity is capable has been used to deny this right. The Negro citizen may go to register only to be told that the day is wrong, or the hour is late, or the official in charge is absent. And if he persists, and if he manages to present himself to the registrar, he may be disqualified because he did not spell out his middle name or because he abbreviated a word on the application.

And if he manages to fill out an application, he is given a test. The registrar is the sole judge of whether he passes this test. He may be asked to recite the entire Constitution, or explain the most complex provisions of State law. And even a college degree cannot be used to prove that he can read and write.

For the fact is that the only way to pass these barriers is to show a white skin.

Experience has clearly shown that the existing process of law cannot overcome systematic and ingenuous discrimination. No law that we now have on the books -- and I have helped to put three of them there -- can ensure the right to vote when local officials are determined to deny it.

In such a case our duty must be clear to all of us. The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or his color. We have all sworn an oath before God to support and to defend that Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath.

Wednesday I will send to Congress a law designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote.

The broad principles of that bill will be in the hands of the Democratic and Republican leaders tomorrow. After they have reviewed it, it will come here formally as a bill. I am grateful for this opportunity to come here tonight at the invitation of the leadership to reason with my friends, to give them my views, and to visit with my former colleagues.

I have had prepared a more comprehensive analysis of the legislation which I had intended to transmit to the clerk tomorrow but which I will submit to the clerks tonight. But I want to really discuss with you, now, briefly the main proposals of this legislation.

This bill will strike down restrictions to voting in all elections: Federal, State, and local; which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.

This bill will establish a simple, uniform standard which cannot be used, however ingenuous the effort, to flout our Constitution.

It will provide for citizens to be registered by officials of the United States Government, if the State officials refuse to register them.

It will eliminate tedious, unnecessary lawsuits which delay the right to vote.

Finally this legislation will ensure that properly registered individuals are not prohibited from voting.

yes the public has bought into the narrative that Johnson did indeed introduce Civil Rights legislation and subsequent Republican President's opposed civil rights legislation.

 

Addressing the nation after JFK's assasination

First, no memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long. We have talked long enough in this country about equal rights. We have talked for one hundred years or more. It is time now to write the next chapter, and to write it in the books of law.

I urge you again, as I did in 1957 and again in 1960, to enact a civil rights law so that we can move forward to eliminate from this Nation every trace of discrimination and oppression that is based upon race or color. There could be no greater source of strength to this Nation both at home and abroad.