Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?
Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.
Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
You, did not.
My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
PERIOD.
Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
THIS "forum," in particular, certainly does. More so than any other that I have visited since internet forums like this were introduced.
This board provides a prime example to those who claim our racist days are behind us and that we can now start to roll back civil rightsCorrell, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
With all due respect, brother. I prefer that he voices his views as much as possible.
For older people like me, with grandchildren who will soon be of voting age, and who have already been reached out to by colleges,
and many young nieces and nephews who will vote in this election year for the first time, provides me with first hand examples that I can show them and discuss with them some of the beliefs of people that could directly or indirectly affect their lives long after I'm gone and not here to protect them.
Just like my parents and grandparents did with me.
They wanted me to see and understand what those who were hostile towards their very presence and wanted to silence them in the 1950's and 60's were actually thinking. And it served to keep me a step ahead.
Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
With all due respect, brother. I prefer that he voices his views as much as possible.
For older people like me, with grandchildren who will soon be of voting age, and who have already been reached out to by colleges,
and many young nieces and nephews who will vote in this election year for the first time, provides me with first hand examples that I can show them and discuss with them some of the beliefs of people that could directly or indirectly affect their lives long after I'm gone and not here to protect them.
Just like my parents and grandparents did with me.
They wanted me to see and understand what those who were hostile towards their very presence and wanted to silence them in the 1950's and 60's were actually thinking. And it served to keep me a step ahead.
LOL so now you try to redefine pro life. You are just an idiot. Remind us what the dems did to the dem that ran for president before Obama. Ohh and Zel Miller?View attachment 312087I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
Blacks have been in our primaries. They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party. There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
I have not redefined anything. Pro life means for life. So all the people I mentioned are for life. Del Miller was not for life, he was anti abortion.
Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusionGoldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights ActTry to follow the thread"They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
The question was government overreach
And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
You are a dishonest assshole.
Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
Make of it what you want
Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
I merely corrected you on it
600K white men died to end slavery!
LOL claiming someone against abortion is NOT pro life, how VERY FUCKING Moronic of you.LOL so now you try to redefine pro life. You are just an idiot. Remind us what the dems did to the dem that ran for president before Obama. Ohh and Zel Miller?View attachment 312087Blacks have been in our primaries. They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party. There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
I have not redefined anything. Pro life means for life. So all the people I mentioned are for life. Del Miller was not for life, he was anti abortion.
Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern DemocratUmm...you were the one jumping to a conclusionGoldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights ActTry to follow the thread
The question was government overreach
And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
You are a dishonest assshole.
Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
Make of it what you want
Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
I merely corrected you on it
Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
is you being a race baiting asshole.
Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?
Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.
Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
You, did not.
My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
PERIOD.
Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?
Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.
Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
You, did not.
My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
PERIOD.
Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?
Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.
Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
You, did not.
My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
PERIOD.
You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
"Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?
Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.
Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
You, did not.
My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
PERIOD.
You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
"Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
What I said was quite specific.Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?
Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was definately an INSULT.
Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
You, did not.
My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
PERIOD.
You are such a piece of shit. You say stupid ass vague general shit like this, with no specifics, and when I call you on it, you pretend that I am putting words in your mouth.
You are a dishonest, cowardly race baiting piece of shit.
