Let's play a game! It's called, who's the REAL racist.

[The Rabbi]

Doesnt make any difference. It is bigotry.

No it's not, it's being prudent and protecting America

Bigotry is prudent? I don't think so.

So don't 'think so' asshole!
It's not 'bigotry' to want to make sure people coming into the country aren't terrorists.
Or doesn't it matter to you that the next time a fucking muslim terrorist decides to murder your family?

Not every terrorist is a Muslim. Not every Muslim is a terrorist.
/end discussion.

No, that is not the end of discussion. Radical Muslims are often terrorists so people coming from Muslim countries should be vetted. Then we have a handle on who has terrorist ties and who is not dangerous to the American people.

How do you determine who is a "radical Muslim"?

 

[Jackson]

That is not what he said. You of course left out one crucial phrase.

UNTIL WE CAN DETERMINE.......

Doesnt make any difference. It is bigotry.

No it's not, it's being prudent and protecting America

Bigotry is prudent? I don't think so.

So don't 'think so' asshole!
It's not 'bigotry' to want to make sure people coming into the country aren't terrorists.
Or doesn't it matter to you that the next time a fucking muslim terrorist decides to murder your family?

Not every terrorist is a Muslim. Not every Muslim is a terrorist.
/end discussion.

Elderly Christian woman stripped naked and paraded through streets by Muslim mob

The 300-strong mob of Muslim men in rural Egypt also burned down seven homes belonging to Orthodox Coptic families, over rumours of an affair between a local Christian man and a Muslim woman

A 70-year-old Christian woman has been stripped naked, beaten and paraded through the streets by a mob of around 300 Muslim men in a village in southern Egypt.

70-year-old Christian woman stripped naked and paraded through the streets by a 300-strong mob

Just let those 300 in without vetting. No problem. Ask Germany.

 

[Jackson]

No it's not, it's being prudent and protecting America

Bigotry is prudent? I don't think so.

So don't 'think so' asshole!
It's not 'bigotry' to want to make sure people coming into the country aren't terrorists.
Or doesn't it matter to you that the next time a fucking muslim terrorist decides to murder your family?

Not every terrorist is a Muslim. Not every Muslim is a terrorist.
/end discussion.

No, that is not the end of discussion. Radical Muslims are often terrorists so people coming from Muslim countries should be vetted. Then we have a handle on who has terrorist ties and who is not dangerous to the American people.

How do you determine who is a "radical Muslim"?

By vetting! See who has terrorist ties, who' on the no fly list, who has spent time in Gitmo!

 

[The Rabbi]

Doesnt make any difference. It is bigotry.

No it's not, it's being prudent and protecting America

Bigotry is prudent? I don't think so.

So don't 'think so' asshole!
It's not 'bigotry' to want to make sure people coming into the country aren't terrorists.
Or doesn't it matter to you that the next time a fucking muslim terrorist decides to murder your family?

Not every terrorist is a Muslim. Not every Muslim is a terrorist.
/end discussion.

Elderly Christian woman stripped naked and paraded through streets by Muslim mob

The 300-strong mob of Muslim men in rural Egypt also burned down seven homes belonging to Orthodox Coptic families, over rumours of an affair between a local Christian man and a Muslim woman

A 70-year-old Christian woman has been stripped naked, beaten and paraded through the streets by a mob of around 300 Muslim men in a village in southern Egypt.

70-year-old Christian woman stripped naked and paraded through the streets by a 300-strong mob

Just let those 300 in without vetting. No problem. Ask Germany.

That's at all relevent because?

 

[The Rabbi]

Bigotry is prudent? I don't think so.

So don't 'think so' asshole!
It's not 'bigotry' to want to make sure people coming into the country aren't terrorists.
Or doesn't it matter to you that the next time a fucking muslim terrorist decides to murder your family?

Not every terrorist is a Muslim. Not every Muslim is a terrorist.
/end discussion.

No, that is not the end of discussion. Radical Muslims are often terrorists so people coming from Muslim countries should be vetted. Then we have a handle on who has terrorist ties and who is not dangerous to the American people.

How do you determine who is a "radical Muslim"?

By vetting! See who has terrorist ties, who' on the no fly list, who has spent time in Gitmo!

You mean like the Tsranayev brothers?

 

[davecmarino]

Bullshit. He has an extensive history of racism prior to becoming the President. He decided to utilize the Tammany Hall principles from NYC that grew the party there and utilize it for the benefit of the party.

The Truth About LBJ and MLK - Breitbart

All of you liberals are revisionist when it comes to the nasty history of the Democratic Party.

Yeah Im a big liberal all right.
It is a slander on Johnson to say he was a racist.
What is the last biography of him you read?

You don't need a biography. He was a member of Congress with a lengthy history of racism.

Yeah- you don't need facts when you can go without them.

Meanwhile- LBJ pushed, promoted and signed the most important Civil Rights legislature in the 20th Century.

You really like that racist because he came up with a new way to financially enslave the blacks and the poor. Nice going.

So you think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 'enslaved blacks and the poor'?

Just another example of Conservative thinking that ensures that minorities in America will continue to treat the Republican Party like lepers.

There is more than the civil rights act in LBJ's legacy. How disingenuous you libs are to pretend that LBJ and his policies didn't tear black families apart. Before LBJ, only 8 percent of black families were broken homes. Today thanks to these policies almost 70% are broken homes.

That sounds like destruction and welfare was the enslavement. Don't say it wasn't because Tammany Hall used to hand out welfare in exchange for votes and the political leaders of the time readily admitted that it was a quid pro quo relationship.

 

[davecmarino]

Johnson was a politician. He was Senate leader during the time you mention and kept his position through the goodwill of important senators like Russell of GA, Byrd of VA, and other diehard racists.
But his actions as president and even before that belie the idea he was a racist. He insisted on dinners he attended being desegregated and employed a black secretary for years. And took her with him to events.
You have a very simplistic, superficial understanding of Johnson, who was enormously complex. But then again this is the internet age and you probably do most of your "research" on Wiki.

He was a manipulative piece of shit Democrat who cared about nothing but his own political power.

There is no question he was a manipulative and obnoxious piece of shit. He once kicked Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey wasnt doing what he wanted fast enouigh.
But his record on civil rights was very strong.

Yes, he strongly opposed it until he was President and saw that he would lose political power if he didn't support it like the Republicans were doing at the time. In Congress, he fought against it and as Vice-President he tried to advise Kennedy against it.

For his first two years, JFK wanted no part of Civil Rights...he just wanted it to go away
It was not until his third year in office that events in the south pushed JFK to where he had to do something

LBJ could have easily killed the Civil Rights bill once he became President. He could have declared his public support and then worked behind the scenes to make sure it never passed. But instead, LBJ used every power he had to make sure it passed...it was his finest hour

Absolutely.

Without LBJ the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed.

This was the third attempt but Republicans to get it passed and the other two time he opposed it. But good try twisting history to make believe the LBJ was its champion.

 

[davecmarino]

Yeah Im a big liberal all right.
It is a slander on Johnson to say he was a racist.
What is the last biography of him you read?

You don't need a biography. He was a member of Congress with a lengthy history of racism.

You don't need facts. Character assassination is enough. Go read a biography and come back when you know something.

Nobody needs a politically slanted biography or movie as it is not the truth. His record while in Congress is all you need. It is fact without your liberal revisionist slant.

Keep defending your racist democrats and their political tricks that re-enslaved the blacks.

Johnson was a man born in Texas in the beginning of the 20th century. O f course he used the word n1gger. Everyone from that period and place used the word.
But Johnson started his career teaching poor Mexicans in school and had an affinity for groups who suffered from discrimination.
Your arguments are facile and without substance.

My favorite story about LBJ(and I think I have this right) was about when he was a teacher- and found out that the janitor was illiterate, and either came early or stayed late every day to teach this minority janitor how to read and write.

LBJ was no saint. But he considered the passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act his finest accomplishment.

Then you should support the Trump family as Trump's son Eric has given about 28 million to a children's hospital to take care of sick children. That's a lot more than any Clinton has ever done.

 

[davecmarino]

You are full of crap as his political career is well documented as he was instrumental in stopping civil rights legislation for over a decade before realizing he could use it to boost the party. In 1948, he called Truman's civil rights proposal a farce and a sham and stated that he will vote against the so called poll tax repeal bill and that he would vote against the anti-lynching bill.

He again stood against the 1957 civil rights bill under Eisenhower.

His great society program has been both the greatest contributor of the breakdown in black families, the largest contributor to increased national expenditures, created inner-city slums, and has been the fuel that has kept the Democratic Party alive.

Your argument is not based in reality but in liberal talking points. You are just to damned stupid to see reality.

LBJ cancelled Kennedy's Executive Orders to scale down our involvement in Vietnam and instead sent over 50,000 men to their death in a war where he also made sure that the enemy could not be attacked in Hanoi to win the war.

You leftist scream about Bush lied and people died while celebrating a man who killed 50,000 men and wounded over 300,000. Over 9 million men had to pay a direct price for this war mongering piece of shit, racist, manipulative scumbag.

Johnson was a politician. He was Senate leader during the time you mention and kept his position through the goodwill of important senators like Russell of GA, Byrd of VA, and other diehard racists.
But his actions as president and even before that belie the idea he was a racist. He insisted on dinners he attended being desegregated and employed a black secretary for years. And took her with him to events.
You have a very simplistic, superficial understanding of Johnson, who was enormously complex. But then again this is the internet age and you probably do most of your "research" on Wiki.

He was a manipulative piece of shit Democrat who cared about nothing but his own political power.

There is no question he was a manipulative and obnoxious piece of shit. He once kicked Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey wasnt doing what he wanted fast enouigh.
But his record on civil rights was very strong.

Yes, he strongly opposed it until he was President and saw that he would lose political power if he didn't support it like the Republicans were doing at the time. In Congress, he fought against it and as Vice-President he tried to advise Kennedy against it.

thats about 180 degrees fro the truth. Kennedy pushed it and Johnson was onboard. He had to shame the Republicans into supporting in. Go read Caro's book before you sound stupid again.

Johnson opposed the first two attempts at civil rights while in Congress and advised Kennedy to stay away from the issue.

 

[Syriusly]

You don't need a biography. He was a member of Congress with a lengthy history of racism.

You don't need facts. Character assassination is enough. Go read a biography and come back when you know something.

Nobody needs a politically slanted biography or movie as it is not the truth. His record while in Congress is all you need. It is fact without your liberal revisionist slant.

Keep defending your racist democrats and their political tricks that re-enslaved the blacks.

Johnson was a man born in Texas in the beginning of the 20th century. O f course he used the word n1gger. Everyone from that period and place used the word.
But Johnson started his career teaching poor Mexicans in school and had an affinity for groups who suffered from discrimination.
Your arguments are facile and without substance.

My favorite story about LBJ(and I think I have this right) was about when he was a teacher- and found out that the janitor was illiterate, and either came early or stayed late every day to teach this minority janitor how to read and write.

LBJ was no saint. But he considered the passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act his finest accomplishment.

Then you should support the Trump family as Trump's son Eric has given about 28 million to a children's hospital to take care of sick children. That's a lot more than any Clinton has ever done.

I think if Eric Trump did that, he is to be commended.

But he is not LBJ, and Eric Trump didn't pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act., nor did Donald Trump.

 

[Syriusly]

Johnson was a politician. He was Senate leader during the time you mention and kept his position through the goodwill of important senators like Russell of GA, Byrd of VA, and other diehard racists.
But his actions as president and even before that belie the idea he was a racist. He insisted on dinners he attended being desegregated and employed a black secretary for years. And took her with him to events.
You have a very simplistic, superficial understanding of Johnson, who was enormously complex. But then again this is the internet age and you probably do most of your "research" on Wiki.

He was a manipulative piece of shit Democrat who cared about nothing but his own political power.

There is no question he was a manipulative and obnoxious piece of shit. He once kicked Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey wasnt doing what he wanted fast enouigh.
But his record on civil rights was very strong.

Yes, he strongly opposed it until he was President and saw that he would lose political power if he didn't support it like the Republicans were doing at the time. In Congress, he fought against it and as Vice-President he tried to advise Kennedy against it.

thats about 180 degrees fro the truth. Kennedy pushed it and Johnson was onboard. He had to shame the Republicans into supporting in. Go read Caro's book before you sound stupid again.

Johnson opposed the first two attempts at civil rights while in Congress and advised Kennedy to stay away from the issue.

LBJ was the single person most responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and considered the signing of the Act his greatest achievement.

 

[davecmarino]

You don't need facts. Character assassination is enough. Go read a biography and come back when you know something.

Nobody needs a politically slanted biography or movie as it is not the truth. His record while in Congress is all you need. It is fact without your liberal revisionist slant.

Keep defending your racist democrats and their political tricks that re-enslaved the blacks.

Johnson was a man born in Texas in the beginning of the 20th century. O f course he used the word n1gger. Everyone from that period and place used the word.
But Johnson started his career teaching poor Mexicans in school and had an affinity for groups who suffered from discrimination.
Your arguments are facile and without substance.

My favorite story about LBJ(and I think I have this right) was about when he was a teacher- and found out that the janitor was illiterate, and either came early or stayed late every day to teach this minority janitor how to read and write.

LBJ was no saint. But he considered the passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act his finest accomplishment.

Then you should support the Trump family as Trump's son Eric has given about 28 million to a children's hospital to take care of sick children. That's a lot more than any Clinton has ever done.

I think if Eric Trump did that, he is to be commended.

But he is not LBJ, and Eric Trump didn't pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act., nor did Donald Trump.

No, it was the Republicans who finally got enough pressure on the Democrats to do it. This was the third attempt and it was Dr Martin Luther King who put enough social pressure on the Democrats to force their hand.

 

[Syriusly]

He was a manipulative piece of shit Democrat who cared about nothing but his own political power.

There is no question he was a manipulative and obnoxious piece of shit. He once kicked Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey wasnt doing what he wanted fast enouigh.
But his record on civil rights was very strong.

Yes, he strongly opposed it until he was President and saw that he would lose political power if he didn't support it like the Republicans were doing at the time. In Congress, he fought against it and as Vice-President he tried to advise Kennedy against it.

For his first two years, JFK wanted no part of Civil Rights...he just wanted it to go away
It was not until his third year in office that events in the south pushed JFK to where he had to do something

LBJ could have easily killed the Civil Rights bill once he became President. He could have declared his public support and then worked behind the scenes to make sure it never passed. But instead, LBJ used every power he had to make sure it passed...it was his finest hour

Absolutely.

Without LBJ the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed.

This was the third attempt but Republicans to get it passed and the other two time he opposed it. But good try twisting history to make believe the LBJ was its champion.

As I said- without LBJ the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed.

The right wing nut jobs like you do try to propose the bitter white mans revisionist history but the facts are the facts:

The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[7] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments", as well as "greater protection for the right to vote".

The assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "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."[12]

The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[19]

 

[davecmarino]

He was a manipulative piece of shit Democrat who cared about nothing but his own political power.

There is no question he was a manipulative and obnoxious piece of shit. He once kicked Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey wasnt doing what he wanted fast enouigh.
But his record on civil rights was very strong.

Yes, he strongly opposed it until he was President and saw that he would lose political power if he didn't support it like the Republicans were doing at the time. In Congress, he fought against it and as Vice-President he tried to advise Kennedy against it.

thats about 180 degrees fro the truth. Kennedy pushed it and Johnson was onboard. He had to shame the Republicans into supporting in. Go read Caro's book before you sound stupid again.

Johnson opposed the first two attempts at civil rights while in Congress and advised Kennedy to stay away from the issue.

LBJ was the single person most responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and considered the signing of the Act his greatest achievement.

No but he was instrumental in getting the Dems to vote for it. Dr Martin Luther King was the single most instrumental man.

 

[Syriusly]

Nobody needs a politically slanted biography or movie as it is not the truth. His record while in Congress is all you need. It is fact without your liberal revisionist slant.

Keep defending your racist democrats and their political tricks that re-enslaved the blacks.

Johnson was a man born in Texas in the beginning of the 20th century. O f course he used the word n1gger. Everyone from that period and place used the word.
But Johnson started his career teaching poor Mexicans in school and had an affinity for groups who suffered from discrimination.
Your arguments are facile and without substance.

My favorite story about LBJ(and I think I have this right) was about when he was a teacher- and found out that the janitor was illiterate, and either came early or stayed late every day to teach this minority janitor how to read and write.

LBJ was no saint. But he considered the passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act his finest accomplishment.

Then you should support the Trump family as Trump's son Eric has given about 28 million to a children's hospital to take care of sick children. That's a lot more than any Clinton has ever done.

I think if Eric Trump did that, he is to be commended.

But he is not LBJ, and Eric Trump didn't pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act., nor did Donald Trump.

No, it was the Republicans who finally got enough pressure on the Democrats to do it. This was the third attempt and it was Dr Martin Luther King who put enough social pressure on the Democrats to force their hand.

What pressure did Republicans bring on Democrats?

Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency.

 

[davecmarino]

There is no question he was a manipulative and obnoxious piece of shit. He once kicked Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey wasnt doing what he wanted fast enouigh.
But his record on civil rights was very strong.

Yes, he strongly opposed it until he was President and saw that he would lose political power if he didn't support it like the Republicans were doing at the time. In Congress, he fought against it and as Vice-President he tried to advise Kennedy against it.

For his first two years, JFK wanted no part of Civil Rights...he just wanted it to go away
It was not until his third year in office that events in the south pushed JFK to where he had to do something

LBJ could have easily killed the Civil Rights bill once he became President. He could have declared his public support and then worked behind the scenes to make sure it never passed. But instead, LBJ used every power he had to make sure it passed...it was his finest hour

Absolutely.

Without LBJ the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed.

This was the third attempt but Republicans to get it passed and the other two time he opposed it. But good try twisting history to make believe the LBJ was its champion.

As I said- without LBJ the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed.

The right wing nut jobs like you do try to propose the bitter white mans revisionist history but the facts are the facts:

The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[7] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments", as well as "greater protection for the right to vote".

The assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "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."[12]

The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[19]

It isn't revisionist history. Look up the two previous attempts to pass a civil rights act. You will find LBJ fighting against it. That is real history. The white men who were fighting it were the Democrats.

 

[Syriusly]

There is no question he was a manipulative and obnoxious piece of shit. He once kicked Hubert Humphrey because Humphrey wasnt doing what he wanted fast enouigh.
But his record on civil rights was very strong.

Yes, he strongly opposed it until he was President and saw that he would lose political power if he didn't support it like the Republicans were doing at the time. In Congress, he fought against it and as Vice-President he tried to advise Kennedy against it.

thats about 180 degrees fro the truth. Kennedy pushed it and Johnson was onboard. He had to shame the Republicans into supporting in. Go read Caro's book before you sound stupid again.

Johnson opposed the first two attempts at civil rights while in Congress and advised Kennedy to stay away from the issue.

LBJ was the single person most responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and considered the signing of the Act his greatest achievement.

No but he was instrumental in getting the Dems to vote for it. Dr Martin Luther King was the single most instrumental man.

LBJ publicly pressured Congress to pass the legislation proposed by Kennedy.

Which resulted in a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voting for it.

And then he signed the bill

July 2, 1964

—President Johnson, upon signing the Civil Rights Act- stating:

"This Civil Rights Act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and our states, in our homes and in our hearts, to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country. So tonight I urge every public official, every religious leader, every business and professional man, every working man, every housewife — I urge every American — to join in this effort to bring justice and hope to all our people, and to bring peace to our land.

"My fellow citizens, we have come now to a time of testing. We must not fail. Let us close the springs of racial poison. Let us pray for wise and understanding hearts. Let us lay aside irrelevant differences and make our nation whole. Let us hasten that day when our unmeasured strength and our unbounded spirit will be free to do the great works ordained for this nation by the just and wise God who is the father of us all."

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, he strongly opposed it until he was President and saw that he would lose political power if he didn't support it like the Republicans were doing at the time. In Congress, he fought against it and as Vice-President he tried to advise Kennedy against it.

For his first two years, JFK wanted no part of Civil Rights...he just wanted it to go away
It was not until his third year in office that events in the south pushed JFK to where he had to do something

LBJ could have easily killed the Civil Rights bill once he became President. He could have declared his public support and then worked behind the scenes to make sure it never passed. But instead, LBJ used every power he had to make sure it passed...it was his finest hour

Absolutely.

Without LBJ the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed.

This was the third attempt but Republicans to get it passed and the other two time he opposed it. But good try twisting history to make believe the LBJ was its champion.

As I said- without LBJ the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed.

The right wing nut jobs like you do try to propose the bitter white mans revisionist history but the facts are the facts:

The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[7] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments", as well as "greater protection for the right to vote".

The assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "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."[12]

The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[19]

It isn't revisionist history. Look up the two previous attempts to pass a civil rights act. You will find LBJ fighting against it. That is real history. The white men who were fighting it were the Democrats.

And the white men who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Democrats and Republicans- more Democrats than Republicans actually, since Democrats were a majority.

 

[davecmarino]

Johnson was a man born in Texas in the beginning of the 20th century. O f course he used the word n1gger. Everyone from that period and place used the word.
But Johnson started his career teaching poor Mexicans in school and had an affinity for groups who suffered from discrimination.
Your arguments are facile and without substance.

My favorite story about LBJ(and I think I have this right) was about when he was a teacher- and found out that the janitor was illiterate, and either came early or stayed late every day to teach this minority janitor how to read and write.

LBJ was no saint. But he considered the passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act his finest accomplishment.

Then you should support the Trump family as Trump's son Eric has given about 28 million to a children's hospital to take care of sick children. That's a lot more than any Clinton has ever done.

I think if Eric Trump did that, he is to be commended.

But he is not LBJ, and Eric Trump didn't pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act., nor did Donald Trump.

No, it was the Republicans who finally got enough pressure on the Democrats to do it. This was the third attempt and it was Dr Martin Luther King who put enough social pressure on the Democrats to force their hand.

What pressure did Republicans bring on Democrats?

Democrats controlled both houses and the Presidency.

You really don't know shit other than liberal talking points. There is a clear history not only in congress but in the social movement under MLK.

Grow up.

 

[davecmarino]

Yes, he strongly opposed it until he was President and saw that he would lose political power if he didn't support it like the Republicans were doing at the time. In Congress, he fought against it and as Vice-President he tried to advise Kennedy against it.

thats about 180 degrees fro the truth. Kennedy pushed it and Johnson was onboard. He had to shame the Republicans into supporting in. Go read Caro's book before you sound stupid again.

Johnson opposed the first two attempts at civil rights while in Congress and advised Kennedy to stay away from the issue.

LBJ was the single person most responsible for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and considered the signing of the Act his greatest achievement.

No but he was instrumental in getting the Dems to vote for it. Dr Martin Luther King was the single most instrumental man.

LBJ publicly pressured Congress to pass the legislation proposed by Kennedy.

Which resulted in a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voting for it.

And then he signed the bill

July 2, 1964

—President Johnson, upon signing the Civil Rights Act- stating:

"This Civil Rights Act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and our states, in our homes and in our hearts, to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country. So tonight I urge every public official, every religious leader, every business and professional man, every working man, every housewife — I urge every American — to join in this effort to bring justice and hope to all our people, and to bring peace to our land.

"My fellow citizens, we have come now to a time of testing. We must not fail. Let us close the springs of racial poison. Let us pray for wise and understanding hearts. Let us lay aside irrelevant differences and make our nation whole. Let us hasten that day when our unmeasured strength and our unbounded spirit will be free to do the great works ordained for this nation by the just and wise God who is the father of us all."

Caro: The reason it’s questioned is that for no less than 20 years in Congress, from 1937 to 1957, Johnson’s record was on the side of the South. He not only voted with the South on civil rights, but he was a southern strategist, but in 1957, he changes and pushes through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. He always had this true, deep compassion to help poor people and particularly poor people of color, but even stronger than the compassion was his ambition. But when the two aligned, when compassion and ambition finally are pointing in the same direction, then Lyndon Johnson becomes a force for racial justice, unequalled certainly since Lincoln.

Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

We found that excerpt in the book as well as these vignettes:

--In 1947, after President Harry S Truman sent Congress proposals against lynching and segregation in interstate transportation, Johnson called the proposed civil rights program a "farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty."

--In his 1948 speech in Austin kicking off his Senate campaign, Johnson declared he was against Truman’s attempt to end the poll tax because, Johnson said, "it is the province of the state to run its own elections." Johnson also was against proposals against lynching "because the federal government," Johnson said, "has no more business enacting a law against one form of murder than against another."

Next, we asked an expert in the offices of the U.S. Senate to check on Johnson’s votes on civil rights measures as a lawmaker. By email, Betty Koed, an associate historian for the Senate, said that according to information compiled by the Senate Library, in "the rare cases when" such "bills came to a roll call vote, it appears that" Johnson "consistently voted against" them or voted to stop consideration.