Clinton’s Civil Rights Lesson

[preservanation]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/civilrights/
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” passed the civil rights legislation.
The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.For any out there who thinks Hillary Inc is going to take the high-road or soften their attacks. Ha!
“You know, today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me. He basically compared himself to our greatest heroes because they gave great speeches.
“President Kennedy was in Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed. He was beaten. He was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important speeches ever written in America, the “I have a dream” speech.
“And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed, because the dream couldn’t be realized until finally it was legally permissible for people of all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens.Sure...pick on the black guy.
Nice.
I guess we've not come as far, in Hillary's world, since 1964 as we thought.

[AlanC]

Johnson is the one who passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Now that seems to be a bit of a twist to history.

The civil rights record of the Democrats in Congress had been miserable. Kennedy ran on, among other things, a promise to bring civil rights to the forefront. It was criticism from Republicans that forced him to finally act in this area.

The Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed by 80% of the Republicans in both the House and the Senate. Only 69% of the Democrats in the Senate and only 61% of the Democrats in the House voted in favor of the bill.

In the Senate, a group of 18 Southern Democrats attempted to block the bill from even coming to a vote by their use of a filibuster. This group included Senator Byrd, and ex-member of the KKK and, amazingly, still in the Senate today.

Prior to 1964, the Democrat Party had worked to actively block or weaken Republican civil rights proposals in both 1960 and 1957. Prior to 1964 Lyndon Johnson, as a Senator, was also involved in this effort.

During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."


An interesting read. (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html)

[potter]

The Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed by 80% of the Republicans in both the House and the Senate. Only 69% of the Democrats in the Senate and only 61% of the Democrats in the House voted in favor of the bill.



So what happened since then to the republicans to make them so mean and miserly?

[AlanC]

My opinion? Civil rights has been co-opted into welfare rights by both the Great Society and the War on Poverty.

From there it seems that it has never recovered. You can look at it as Republicnas being mean and miserly or you can look at it from the perspective that social programs have enslaved a great deal of the black population and robbed them of their futures.

[AmericanDreamer]

So what happened since then to the republicans to make them so mean and miserly?

Same goes for the Democrats. For every nice Democrat you will find a nice Republican. That's is the yin/yang of human nature, and it represents the two primal non-cosmic forces in the United States.

[potter]

My opinion? Civil rights has been co-opted into welfare rights by both the Great Society and the War on Poverty.

From there it seems that it has never recovered. You can look at it as Republicnas being mean and miserly or you can look at it from the perspective that social programs have enslaved a great deal of the black population and robbed them of their futures.



But why the great opposition by conservatives to social welfare but no comment on corporate welfare? Take Pakistan for instance....we give them 10 billion buck, but they gotta spend it on US made military hardware...which undoubtedly will be used against us. No accountability for corporate fraud...nobody is hollering about that....just "them poor people aint' getting any of MY money". Of course I'm speaking ingeneralizations here.... Why is it OK for major corporations to pick your pocket...but not someone who may really need it?

I think a little fairness in the situation is needed.

[Mark L Hamburger]

because they are all crooks that want the same thing, and just work in different ways to acheive that goal.

[potter]

because they are all crooks that want the same thing, and just work in different ways to acheive that goal.



OK... I think that's pretty much a universal opinion.

I would however like to clarify....I think most conservatives are very caring people, but I thing the conservative pundits like to stir shit up with sound bites that sound macho and unforgiving...mocking the other side. IMO, too many people fall into a trap of trying to identify with those pundit political identifiers which in fact run counter to their own moral values and actions.

For instance, I know many conservatives who would give you or anyone in need the shirt off their back, but then spout pundit crap like each man for himself and not on my dime they dont...

I think they just want to sound tough.....:fight:

[Mark L Hamburger]

Yes, most people are very charitable, which is why we don't need the government to be that way. All government does is limit the ability of individuals to be as charitable as they would otherwise be. Both Christian and secular charities are more effective in doing what they do than the government ever has been. The problem is that far too many people look to the government as a solution to all the problems in the world when all they really do is eff things up.

[underdawg]

The southern democrats of the 60s are now the republicans of today. The switch happened when the moral majority joined together with big business republicans in that most unholy alliance.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-05-15-falwell-critics-allies_N.htm

[preservanation]

because they are all crooks that want the same thing, and just work in different ways to acheive that goal.



OK... I think that's pretty much a universal opinion.

Yeah, pretty much...Kind of like almost perfect, eh? Hoooo Boy!
thing the conservative pundits like to stir sh1t up with sound bites that sound macho and unforgiving...mocking the other side.

Furthermore Conservatives have taken derision, defamation, attacks, unfounded stereotypes, mischaracterizations and outright hostility from the media and left wing for decades .
Now the definition of a decent conservative is a quiet one?
Dream on, you have coming everything you get.
Grow a pair.

[potter]

because they are all crooks that want the same thing, and just work in different ways to acheive that goal.



OK... I think that's pretty much a universal opinion.

Yeah, pretty much...Kind of like almost perfect, eh? Hoooo Boy!
thing the conservative pundits like to stir sh1t up with sound bites that sound macho and unforgiving...mocking the other side.

Furthermore Conservatives have taken derision, defamation, attacks, unfounded stereotypes, mischaracterizations and outright hostility from the media and left wing for decades .
Now the definition of a decent conservative is a quiet one?
Dream on, you have coming everything you get.
Grow a pair.



I'm not the left wing nor the media. I've not done a thing to you to deserve that attack.

I was telling only my expereice with conservatives I know. They talk a hard line but they are pretty nice people. If you take offence at that then you have a real problem bub.[hr]*grunts....squeaks...goes out and kills an animal*

Now I feel macho.....

[preservanation]

because they are all crooks that want the same thing, and just work in different ways to acheive that goal.



OK... I think that's pretty much a universal opinion.

Yeah, pretty much...Kind of like almost perfect, eh? Hoooo Boy!
thing the conservative pundits like to stir sh1t up with sound bites that sound macho and unforgiving...mocking the other side.

Furthermore Conservatives have taken derision, defamation, attacks, unfounded stereotypes, mischaracterizations and outright hostility from the media and left wing for decades .
Now the definition of a decent conservative is a quiet one?
Dream on, you have coming everything you get.
Grow a pair.



I'm not the left wing nor the media. I've not done a thing to you to deserve that attack.

I was telling only my expereice with conservatives I know. They talk a hard line but they are pretty nice people. If you take offence at that then you have a real problem bub.
I'll take that last part as an admission that you are a Conservative, according to your own definition...

[potter]

because they are all crooks that want the same thing, and just work in different ways to acheive that goal.



OK... I think that's pretty much a universal opinion.

Yeah, pretty much...Kind of like almost perfect, eh? Hoooo Boy!
thing the conservative pundits like to stir sh1t up with sound bites that sound macho and unforgiving...mocking the other side.

Furthermore Conservatives have taken derision, defamation, attacks, unfounded stereotypes, mischaracterizations and outright hostility from the media and left wing for decades .
Now the definition of a decent conservative is a quiet one?
Dream on, you have coming everything you get.
Grow a pair.



I'm not the left wing nor the media. I've not done a thing to you to deserve that attack.

I was telling only my expereice with conservatives I know. They talk a hard line but they are pretty nice people. If you take offence at that then you have a real problem bub.
I'll take that last part as an admission that you are a Conservative, according to your own definition...



Yes, I do have a very conservative side. Mostly dealing with smaller less intrusive government and monetary policy. I also have a more liberal side dealing with environmental policy and social responsibility. I don't march in lock step with either party line however.

[preservanation]

because they are all crooks that want the same thing, and just work in different ways to acheive that goal.



OK... I think that's pretty much a universal opinion.

Yeah, pretty much...Kind of like almost perfect, eh? Hoooo Boy!
thing the conservative pundits like to stir sh1t up with sound bites that sound macho and unforgiving...mocking the other side.

Furthermore Conservatives have taken derision, defamation, attacks, unfounded stereotypes, mischaracterizations and outright hostility from the media and left wing for decades .
Now the definition of a decent conservative is a quiet one?
Dream on, you have coming everything you get.
Grow a pair.



I'm not the left wing nor the media. I've not done a thing to you to deserve that attack.

I was telling only my expereice with conservatives I know. They talk a hard line but they are pretty nice people. If you take offence at that then you have a real problem bub.
I'll take that last part as an admission that you are a Conservative, according to your own definition...



Yes, I do have a very conservative side. Mostly dealing with smaller less intrusive government and monetary policy. I also have a more liberal side dealing with environmental policy and social responsibility. I don't march in lock step with either party line however.
So your confused, or you want to be invited to all the cocktail parties or you don't want to queer (poor choice of word) your chances with that redhead because you don't know her political affiliation.
Good job and good luck!

[Mark L Hamburger]

So your confused, or you want to be invited to all the cocktail parties or you don't want to queer (poor choice of word) your chances with that redhead because you don't know her political affiliation.
Good job and good luck!


So, you either have to agree with everything one party or he other believes, or you're confused?

[preservanation]

There are two very different directions this country can go...one way is toward socialism, and the GOP is on that road as well as the Dems.
The two choices we have are liberalism and conservatism...very different. What is not conservative is necessarily liberalism, take your pick.

Partisanship is good!
It will save this nation from Marxism some day.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I guess it's just that you're thinking along a single axis, when there are in reality two axes, liberal-conservative and libertarian-authoritarian.

Libertarians want freedom both economically (conservative, in that we don't want the government taking all our money) AND freedom socially (liberal, in the actual definition, from libertas or liberty, not in the way that Democrats use the term.)

So, one can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal in that they don't want the government interfering with your life in any way.

Now, in the context you were commenting on, you're probably right, you can't be conservative and want social programs, so I agree with you on that.

[preservanation]

So, one can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal in that they don't want the government interfering with your life in any way.No they can't.
You are not understanding liberalism in today's context...they are for reducing individual rights and freedoms through regulation and fiat. If this is news to you, just look at the what has been coming out of the left for the last 30 years.
If you want examples of how the left has been forcefully pushing this country into a Marxist and socialist state just look at what they have been saying, doing and proposing.
It's right under your nose, man. Just inhale once and it will be apparent.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I meant liberal in the classic sense, or the way it is used in every country in the world besides the US.

As in, I meant this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

So, I understand what you mean :thumbsup:

[preservanation]

If that was the case...I'd still be one today!

[Elrathin]

You are not understanding liberalism in today's context...they are for reducing individual rights and freedoms through regulation and fiat.

Hmmm many conservatives support taking away rights through the Patriot act. And CONSERVATIVES have been spending money like a drunken sailors in Congress. Liberals want accountability in the government.

And yes, someone can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Who are you to tell people what they are and are not? Sounds like another conservative on an ego trip to me. No wonder their party is going under.

Extremism doesn't work, your party should have learned that in 06. Guess they need another wake up call in 08. Dem victory is in hands thanks to conservatives that believe there are only two extremes.

[preservanation]

For the life of me, I can't find the video on CNN or anywhere else for that matter. But Morning Joe just aired it on MSNBC.
It shows Donna Brazil basically calling Bill Clinton a racist because he refered to Obama as a kid and a "fairytail"!
The Clintons are going to be in a box, of the libs making. Any attack or criticism of can be construed as a racial slur by the race baiters in this country, and will, except for the ones backing Hillary of course.
This is funny, because dems and libs make racial slurs all the time but are never called on it because of their political affiliation.
However this is "inter-politics" where a black is competing for power with the white libs...the white libs can't abide this. Obama has strayed from the plantation and they are in the process of releasing the blood-hounds into the foggy night to track him down and return him to the House for a well deserved switchn'.

Blacks who support Obama will play the race card and scream racism every time the Clintons go after him on any issue. The shoe is on the other foot now. How does it feel?
I'll tell you how it feels to me....Deeelicious!

[potter]

So your confused, or you want to be invited to all the cocktail parties or you don't want to queer (poor choice of word) your chances with that redhead because you don't know her political affiliation.
Good job and good luck!


I gather that you feel if a person has the capacity to make ones own judgment about what one wants and does not brainlessly follow one party line or the other to a "T" one does not have a right to partake in the political process? I didn't ask for nor do I approve of the two party system. It is NOT a democracy nor does it represent the will of the people, only extremists.

You don't believe in compromise at all do you? You are the stuff of many wars and much suffering my man.

Why even have a political process if this is the case? Why not have a dictator?

I'm sorry if you feel my need to have control over my environment and destiny to be foolish. I'll get my "lockstep" boots on for ya.[hr]

It will save this nation from Marxism some day.



I see...you prefer the oppression of capitalism and strict class lines. You prefer that corporations tell you what to do and how to live your life? You prefer that factories be able to spew poisons into the atmosphere and hire kids? You prefer unsafe products and adulterated food? A "know your place" sort of society huh? A society where no one questions the corporate authority with corporate prisons and corporate police with a profit margin to maintain?

[preservanation]

potter, two things you should know about me...I believe partisanship is good, it is the bulwark against liberal socialism. Compromise with the left is defined as conservatives giving up their ideals and positions. That has gone on long enough and will no longer be tolerated by me.
Second, I am a free-market Capitalist and your characterization of it is false and straight out of the "Communist Manifesto"[hr]All this cumbaya, We Are The World, Can't We All Get Along Bullshit makes me want to puke.
You are a socialist, I am a free-market Capitalist. Never the twain shall meet.
Get used to it.

[potter]

You believe in partisanship ONLY if you follow one of two party lines and you must follow those platforms fully...that is what I get from your "you want to be invited to all the parties" post.

I really don't care what you've been brainwashed into thinking. You are demanding that everyone follow ONE line of thinking.

Regarding socialism, not everyone views it as the big evil you seem to. I don't have a problem with socialism in moderation, in fact some programs work best socialized.

I believe in free markets but only to a certain extent. Take medical care, it is NOT a discretionary commodity. You don't get it, you die.

I trust business to do the right thing even less than the government. Greed greed everywhere and not an honest person in sight.