Why do liberals still hate black folks?…

Who’s Sonny?




I’m sure you know who this is.


And your thread is about “liberals still hating black folks.” You, the OP, falsely claimed Strom Thurman was a “liberal.” I was responding to that. In YOUR a thread. To YOUR a false comment.

Do try to keep up.

Or don’t. I don’t really care. You could continue to make ridiculous statements and run away, or lob a few insults.

Your dime. Enjoy!

Check the voting on how blacks and women got their rights ,you might get edumacated Originally Posted by oilfieldace

LBJ and George Wallace were both southern democrats. They had different views on the topic of civil rights. George Wallace was stuck in the past. He did want to let black students register for class at the University of Alabama when Joe Namath was playing quarterback for the football team, in the early sixties.

Yes, LBJ had his vice president Hubert Humphrey cut deals and/or work with some liberal republicans (Not Republican Strom Thurman) to get the Civil rights act passed.

No matter how hard you try to equate the Dixiecrat party to the Democrat party, it's just not true. The dixiecrats were just a wing of the democratic party that died out over time.

You may have been a successful wildcatter ( like Jerry Jones) your interpretation of the facts just don't fly. It is you who needs to get educated.

LBJ and George Wallace were both southern democrats. They had different views on the topic of civil rights. George Wallace was stuck in the past. He did want to let black students register for class at the University of Alabama when Joe Namath was playing quarterback for the football team, in the early sixties.

Yes, LBJ had his vice president Hubert Humphrey cut deals and/or work with some liberal republicans (Not Republican Strom Thurman) to get the Civil rights act passed. Originally Posted by adav8s28

some? it was a majority of the liberal republicans. the republicans weren't the problem... it was democrats who didn't support civil rights who were the problem. LBJ had to do some arm twisting on his fellow dems to make that work with the republicans.

No matter how hard you try to equate the Dixiecrat party to the Democrat party, it's just not true. The dixiecrats were just a wing of the democratic party that died out over time.

You may have been a successful wildcatter ( like Jerry Jones) your interpretation of the facts just don't fly. It is you who needs to get educated.

some? it was a majority of the liberal republicans. the republicans weren't the problem... it was democrats who didn't support civil rights who were the problem. LBJ had to do some arm twisting on his fellow dems to make that work with the republicans. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Neither you or Oilfield know what you are talking about. JFK first introduced the bill and JFK was a democrat. Northern democrats were not the problem. The southern democrats or sometimes referred to as dixiecrats were just a WING of the democratic party, NOT THE Democratic party.

LBJ, had his vice president(Humphrey) cut deals with some of the republicans to get the modified version of the bill passed.

Clearly northern democrats were NOT the problem as you tried to indicate. Northern democrats in the Senate voted 45 to 1 in favor of the modified bill. (JFK's original had to changed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The Senate Vote:

The House of Representatives:[3][38]

Southern Democrats: 8–83 (9–91%) – four Representatives from Texas (Jack Brooks, Albert Thomas, J. J. Pickle, and Henry González), two from Tennessee (Richard Fulton and Ross Bass), Claude Pepper of Florida and Charles L. Weltner of Georgia voted in favor
Southern Republicans: 0–11 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–8 (95–5%)
Northern Republicans: 136–24 (85–15%)
Note that four Representatives voted Present while 13 did not vote.

The Senate:[38]

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) – only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) – John Tower of Texas, the only Southern Republican at the time, voted against
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) – only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%) – Norris Cotton (NH), Barry Goldwater (AZ), Bourke Hickenlooper (IA), Edwin Mecham (NM), and Milward Simpson (WY) voted against

sure if you say so.


heres the actual break down.


you can see that the republicans by percentage were far more supportive of it than the democrats. their support was not overwhelming, it was lukewarm.

The Senate version:[36]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–06 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[36]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

sure if you say so.


heres the actual break down.
[/LIST] Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

The actual break down in post 34 is accurate. You continue to want to lump the dixiecrats with the northern democrats to fit your agenda. Everyone knows that guys like Strom Thurman and George Wallace did not support LBJ's Civil Rights act.

The actual break down in post 34 is accurate. You continue to want to lump the dixiecrats with the northern democrats to fit your agenda. Everyone knows that guys like Strom Thurman and George Wallace did not support LBJ's Civil Rights act. Originally Posted by adav8s28

me? have an agenda??? what agenda would that be? lol....

I don't give a shit about the dixiecrats.

the breakdown was interesting, but the region names are irrelevant and misleading.

its the actual vote that counts.

you're the one who's trying dodge this inconvenient fact that the democrats were lukewarm about this.

20 house members sat out of this vote. if they had voted No, then the democrat yes vote would have been at 61-39% instead of 63–37%. Theres no question that the House had the votes to pass it.

the real fun was in the senate.

the proponents of the CA1964 were up against some stiff resistance in the form of the filibuster. 67 votes were need to end the filibuster which lasted 54 days. it took 6 democrat senators to defeat the filibuster by a 4 vote margin. The arm twisting affair was with those 6 senators.

even here, the senators were pretty much lukewarm about voting for it.

============================== ===

Vote totals

Totals are in Yea–Nay format:

• The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%)
• Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%)
• The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%)
• The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%)

By party

The original House version:[36]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[37]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–06 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[36]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–06 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[36]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

.

the breakdown was interesting, but the region names are irrelevant and misleading.
[/LIST] Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Why is it irrelevant? Because you say so?