I've heard it on here so much enough is enough

[peach174]

The Civil Rights bill was stalled in the House of Representatives' Rules Committee when Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963. It was finally sent to the floor of the House on Jan. 30, 1964. After nine days of debate, on Feb. 10 the bill was voted on by 420 members -- 290 in favor, 130 opposed. Republicans voted in favor 138-34, and Democrats voted 152-96 in support. Democrats from northern states voted in favor 141- 4and southern-state Democrats opposed the bill 92-11.

The bill was next sent to the Senate. Since it was passed in the House first it went directly to the Senate calendar, bypassing the normal committee review. This rule is rarely used, but supporters of the bill wanted to avoid the probable delay of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The vote in favor of placing it directly before the full Senate was 54-37. This left the opposition with only the filibuster tool to try to stop the bill.

The motion to consider the bill was debated for sixteen days before it passed, 67-17. For the next three months opponents, known as the "southern bloc," filibustered the bill. The southern bloc consisted of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, led by Sen. Richard Russell, a Democrat from Georgia. This minority could hold up the bill because Senate rules guarantee unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture, a procedure that ends debate and allows a vote, if two-thirds of the Senate agree.


Democrats made up exactly two-thirds of the Senate, with 67 of the 100 members. But 21 of those were from southern states. This meant cloture required 22 of the Senate's 33 Republicans to support a vote on the Democrat-sponsored bill. The minority leader, Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., played a pivotal role for the civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, his substantial efforts in support of the bill culminated in an impassioned appeal to the Senate to support cloture and hold the vote. On this extraordinary occasion, the Senate voted for cloture, 71-29 -- 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted in favor. Opposed were 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

A larger percentage of Republicans were for the Bill.
Southern Dems were against it.
These were the same Dems that had State Government segregation rules of separation and they considered Blacks not equal.
These were the Same Dems in ideology that were against Freeing the Slaves in the 1860's.

 

[rightwinger]

The Civil Rights bill was stalled in the House of Representatives' Rules Committee when Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963. It was finally sent to the floor of the House on Jan. 30, 1964. After nine days of debate, on Feb. 10 the bill was voted on by 420 members -- 290 in favor, 130 opposed. Republicans voted in favor 138-34, and Democrats voted 152-96 in support. Democrats from northern states voted in favor 141- 4and southern-state Democrats opposed the bill 92-11.

The bill was next sent to the Senate. Since it was passed in the House first it went directly to the Senate calendar, bypassing the normal committee review. This rule is rarely used, but supporters of the bill wanted to avoid the probable delay of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The vote in favor of placing it directly before the full Senate was 54-37. This left the opposition with only the filibuster tool to try to stop the bill.

The motion to consider the bill was debated for sixteen days before it passed, 67-17. For the next three months opponents, known as the "southern bloc," filibustered the bill. The southern bloc consisted of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, led by Sen. Richard Russell, a Democrat from Georgia. This minority could hold up the bill because Senate rules guarantee unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture, a procedure that ends debate and allows a vote, if two-thirds of the Senate agree.


Democrats made up exactly two-thirds of the Senate, with 67 of the 100 members. But 21 of those were from southern states. This meant cloture required 22 of the Senate's 33 Republicans to support a vote on the Democrat-sponsored bill. The minority leader, Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., played a pivotal role for the civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, his substantial efforts in support of the bill culminated in an impassioned appeal to the Senate to support cloture and hold the vote. On this extraordinary occasion, the Senate voted for cloture, 71-29 -- 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted in favor. Opposed were 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

A larger percentage of Republicans were for the Bill.
Southern Dems were against it.
These were the same Dems that had State Government segregation rules of separation and they considered Blacks not equal.
These were the Same Dems in ideology that were against Freeing the Slaves in the 1860's.

Once again you try to turn a North/South issue into a Democrat/Republican issue

Southern Democrats opposed Civil rights.....Southern Republicans did not stand up for the rights of blacks

One thing consistent was that Liberals of both parties supported Civil Rights while Conservatives opposed it.

 

[peach174]

It does not matter what labels the two parties use.

The ideology has remained the same since the beginning to our Nation.

We had the Nationalists and the Federalists.
Nationalists, bigger Government and control over the people. Who have become the Democrats of today, especially the Liberals aka Progressives who are in both parties now.
Federalists, less Federal Government and for States rights. Who are the Republicans and are at opposition to the progressives in their own party today.

The ones who call themselves liberal Dems today are the same Dems that they have always been. Their ideology is that the Federal Government should have more control over the people because the people are incapable of governing themselves, (ideology of President Jefferson).
They are the same Dems that thought Blacks were an inferior race and should have no rights. They are the same Dems who used segregation to control them and keep them separate from whites.
They are the same Dems of today that passed Government programs in the guise of helping the people with welfare, food stamps, housing and abortion rights & education. All of these programs control the people and now Health Care.
They are the same today in their ideology but have gotten worse about controlling the people.

 

[peach174]

The Civil Rights bill was stalled in the House of Representatives' Rules Committee when Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963. It was finally sent to the floor of the House on Jan. 30, 1964. After nine days of debate, on Feb. 10 the bill was voted on by 420 members -- 290 in favor, 130 opposed. Republicans voted in favor 138-34, and Democrats voted 152-96 in support. Democrats from northern states voted in favor 141- 4and southern-state Democrats opposed the bill 92-11.

The bill was next sent to the Senate. Since it was passed in the House first it went directly to the Senate calendar, bypassing the normal committee review. This rule is rarely used, but supporters of the bill wanted to avoid the probable delay of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The vote in favor of placing it directly before the full Senate was 54-37. This left the opposition with only the filibuster tool to try to stop the bill.

The motion to consider the bill was debated for sixteen days before it passed, 67-17. For the next three months opponents, known as the "southern bloc," filibustered the bill. The southern bloc consisted of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, led by Sen. Richard Russell, a Democrat from Georgia. This minority could hold up the bill because Senate rules guarantee unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture, a procedure that ends debate and allows a vote, if two-thirds of the Senate agree.


Democrats made up exactly two-thirds of the Senate, with 67 of the 100 members. But 21 of those were from southern states. This meant cloture required 22 of the Senate's 33 Republicans to support a vote on the Democrat-sponsored bill. The minority leader, Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., played a pivotal role for the civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, his substantial efforts in support of the bill culminated in an impassioned appeal to the Senate to support cloture and hold the vote. On this extraordinary occasion, the Senate voted for cloture, 71-29 -- 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted in favor. Opposed were 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

A larger percentage of Republicans were for the Bill.
Southern Dems were against it.
These were the same Dems that had State Government segregation rules of separation and they considered Blacks not equal.
These were the Same Dems in ideology that were against Freeing the Slaves in the 1860's.

Once again you try to turn a North/South issue into a Democrat/Republican issue

Southern Democrats opposed Civil rights.....Southern Republicans did not stand up for the rights of blacks

One thing consistent was that Liberals of both parties supported Civil Rights while Conservatives opposed it.

What I put up was actual history, from a history book. It is not my opinion.
You are the one that wants to turn it into a North/South, Dem/Repub, liberal issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Civil Rights bill was stalled in the House of Representatives' Rules Committee when Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963. It was finally sent to the floor of the House on Jan. 30, 1964. After nine days of debate, on Feb. 10 the bill was voted on by 420 members -- 290 in favor, 130 opposed. Republicans voted in favor 138-34, and Democrats voted 152-96 in support. Democrats from northern states voted in favor 141- 4and southern-state Democrats opposed the bill 92-11.

The bill was next sent to the Senate. Since it was passed in the House first it went directly to the Senate calendar, bypassing the normal committee review. This rule is rarely used, but supporters of the bill wanted to avoid the probable delay of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The vote in favor of placing it directly before the full Senate was 54-37. This left the opposition with only the filibuster tool to try to stop the bill.

The motion to consider the bill was debated for sixteen days before it passed, 67-17. For the next three months opponents, known as the "southern bloc," filibustered the bill. The southern bloc consisted of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, led by Sen. Richard Russell, a Democrat from Georgia. This minority could hold up the bill because Senate rules guarantee unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture, a procedure that ends debate and allows a vote, if two-thirds of the Senate agree.


Democrats made up exactly two-thirds of the Senate, with 67 of the 100 members. But 21 of those were from southern states. This meant cloture required 22 of the Senate's 33 Republicans to support a vote on the Democrat-sponsored bill. The minority leader, Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., played a pivotal role for the civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, his substantial efforts in support of the bill culminated in an impassioned appeal to the Senate to support cloture and hold the vote. On this extraordinary occasion, the Senate voted for cloture, 71-29 -- 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted in favor. Opposed were 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

A larger percentage of Republicans were for the Bill.
Southern Dems were against it.
These were the same Dems that had State Government segregation rules of separation and they considered Blacks not equal.
These were the Same Dems in ideology that were against Freeing the Slaves in the 1860's.

Once again you try to turn a North/South issue into a Democrat/Republican issue

Southern Democrats opposed Civil rights.....Southern Republicans did not stand up for the rights of blacks

One thing consistent was that Liberals of both parties supported Civil Rights while Conservatives opposed it.

What I put up was actual history, from a history book. It is not my opinion.
You are the one that wants to turn it into a North/South, Dem/Repub, liberal issue.

Southern Democrats were conservatives back then. Stop making an ass of yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's exactly what I mean some liberals on here think the founders are equal to modern day liberals. and would support the policies of modern day liberals.

That would mean that the founding fathers supported same-sex marriage.

The dishonestly-named rightwinger claimed they would support Obamacare.

Completely irrational, of course.

In order to rationally talk about what the founders would have believed today, you have to transpose their position, in their times, to what it could be expected to be now.

The founders were, in their day, extremely progressive and extremely in favor of radical change from the status quo,

and they were extreme in their desire to fight for the common man.

In that context the rational expectation of what their view of healthcare today would be something along the lines of universal healthcare;

they probably would have seen Obamacare as too conservative.

 

[peach174]

Once again you try to turn a North/South issue into a Democrat/Republican issue

Southern Democrats opposed Civil rights.....Southern Republicans did not stand up for the rights of blacks

One thing consistent was that Liberals of both parties supported Civil Rights while Conservatives opposed it.

What I put up was actual history, from a history book. It is not my opinion.
You are the one that wants to turn it into a North/South, Dem/Repub, liberal issue.

Southern Democrats were conservatives back then. Stop making an ass of yourself.

Yeah they just decided to change their names to liberal like Senator Byrd. Same ideology though, control over the people.

 

[Newby]

Once again you try to turn a North/South issue into a Democrat/Republican issue

Southern Democrats opposed Civil rights.....Southern Republicans did not stand up for the rights of blacks

One thing consistent was that Liberals of both parties supported Civil Rights while Conservatives opposed it.

What I put up was actual history, from a history book. It is not my opinion.
You are the one that wants to turn it into a North/South, Dem/Repub, liberal issue.

Southern Democrats were conservatives back then. Stop making an ass of yourself.

Maybe because their job was to accurately represent the people that voted for them, not a party or the party's self interests and idealogies. Something that is unheard of today.

 

[g5000]

What I want to address is which liberal policy would the founders of America support?
Give their names and the policy.

Name: Thomas Jefferson

Policy: Progressive taxation.

I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.

Name: Thomas Paine

Policies: Welfare, Social Security, Estate Taxes

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

Various methods may be proposed for this purpose, but that which appears to be the best (not only because it will operate without deranging any present possessors, or without interfering with the collection of taxes or emprunts necessary for the purposes of government and the Revolution, but becauseit will be th e least troublesome and the most effectual,and also because the subtraction will be made at a time that best admitsit) is at the moment that property is passing by the death of one person to the possession of another. In this case, the bequeather gives nothing: the receiver pays nothing. The only matter to him is that the monopoly of natural inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to cease in his person. A generous man would not wish it to continue, and a just man will rejoice to see it abolished.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which of today's liberals believe "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country"?

JFK was calling on that generation to serve their government in peaceful goals the way they had served it in war, in the past.

Nice try though.

Well, that's an interesting spin. You see, the government does not equate to the nation.

When I was in uniform, I served the nation -- NOT the government.

Do progressives simply not grasp the difference?

lol, a guy who makes a career out of working for the government insisting he never worked for the government.

In an abstract way you've actually proven how Kennedy was not a conservative.

Kennedy believed that government was a part of the solution to our problems. Quite a large part, in fact.

Conservatives, especially the modern day variety that squawk the loudest, have simply decided that government is the problem, period.

Nothing could be farther from the beliefs of JFK than that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What I put up was actual history, from a history book. It is not my opinion.
You are the one that wants to turn it into a North/South, Dem/Repub, liberal issue.

Southern Democrats were conservatives back then. Stop making an ass of yourself.

Yeah they just decided to change their names to liberal like Senator Byrd. Same ideology though, control over the people.

For god's sake stop talking.

 

[peach174]

Southern Democrats were conservatives back then. Stop making an ass of yourself.

Yeah they just decided to change their names to liberal like Senator Byrd. Same ideology though, control over the people.

For god's sake stop talking.

You have a problem with facts?

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's exactly what I mean some liberals on here think the founders are equal to modern day liberals. and would support the policies of modern day liberals.

That would mean that the founding fathers supported same-sex marriage.

No probably not...anymore than they supported women and blacks voting or blacks and whites marrying. Lucky for us they wrote such a brilliant Constitution that it allows for all of them.

The Founding Fathers believed in replacing the divine right of Kings with the divine rights of the common man;

in its day that was genuinely revolutionary. It's thus quite easy to see men of that mindset supporting a very mildly revolutionary idea like same sex marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah they just decided to change their names to liberal like Senator Byrd. Same ideology though, control over the people.

For god's sake stop talking.

You have a problem with facts?

What fact? That the only modern day Democrat that conservatives really like is Zell Miller - a former conservative Southern segregationist Democrat?

Why is that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah they just decided to change their names to liberal like Senator Byrd. Same ideology though, control over the people.

For god's sake stop talking.

You have a problem with facts?

Tell me in one sentence what your point is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What I put up was actual history, from a history book. It is not my opinion.
You are the one that wants to turn it into a North/South, Dem/Repub, liberal issue.

Southern Democrats were conservatives back then. Stop making an ass of yourself.

Maybe because their job was to accurately represent the people that voted for them, not a party or the party's self interests and idealogies. Something that is unheard of today.

Tell me how my governor, Andrew Cuomo, is not representing the interests of the people who voted for him.

 

[peach174]

For god's sake stop talking.

You have a problem with facts?

Tell me in one sentence what your point is.

Byrd like many Democratic conservatives were against civil rights, they changed to liberals or changed over to the Republican party, but still think that Federal Government should control the people - aka Progressives who are now in both parties.

 

[daveman]

It never ceases to amaze me how Consevatives can contort Kennedy's call for public service......Ask not what your country can do for you......and turn it into an anti-social program declaration

Almost as bad as the way he contort MLKs I have a dream speech

Yes, I've seen liberals claim MLK's speech meant he supported judging people by their race.

Pathetic, huh?

You want to hear a funny one?

Conservatives actually think MLK did not support affirmative action because of that speech

No, really....I'm serious

AA was needed at that time.

Now?

Not so much.

 

[daveman]

That would mean that the founding fathers supported same-sex marriage.

The dishonestly-named rightwinger claimed they would support Obamacare.

Completely irrational, of course.

In order to rationally talk about what the founders would have believed today, you have to transpose their position, in their times, to what it could be expected to be now.

The founders were, in their day, extremely progressive and extremely in favor of radical change from the status quo,

and they were extreme in their desire to fight for the common man.

In that context the rational expectation of what their view of healthcare today would be something along the lines of universal healthcare;

they probably would have seen Obamacare as too conservative.

Yes, you can make any claim, if you totally make shit up.

 

[daveman]

JFK was calling on that generation to serve their government in peaceful goals the way they had served it in war, in the past.

Nice try though.

Well, that's an interesting spin. You see, the government does not equate to the nation.

When I was in uniform, I served the nation -- NOT the government.

Do progressives simply not grasp the difference?

lol, a guy who makes a career out of working for the government insisting he never worked for the government.

In an abstract way you've actually proven how Kennedy was not a conservative.

Kennedy believed that government was a part of the solution to our problems. Quite a large part, in fact.

Conservatives, especially the modern day variety that squawk the loudest, have simply decided that government is the problem, period.

Nothing could be farther from the beliefs of JFK than that.

Thanks for proving my point that progressives can't comprehend the difference between government and nation.

When I served in uniform, I served the nation as a whole. I didn't just serve government bureaucrats. Taxpayers paid my wages; the government just wrote the check -- but the entire nation benefited -- in some small way -- from my service.

You will again utterly fail to understand this.