Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

Ryan H - A poor Historian

crab3535

New member
Young man, some day, you might grow up to be a fine lawyer, but at present, you are a very poor student of history relative to the voting records of the legislators concerning the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


(Just use Google search engine and type in Senate 1964 Civil Rights Vote)

This is an excerpt from the Washington Post:

At this time I only wish to speak to one lie. To me it is important because Clinton bigots keep repeating the lie. Al Gore Sr. was a racist bigot who voted against the Civil Rights Bill. Al Gore lied when he said his dad lost the election because he stood for the Civil Rights Bill. The blacks were gored by Al Gore sr. and his son lies to cover up the racist background. It is easy to control the minds of people. All one has to do is change history by lying about the past. This is exactly what has happened with the legacy of former Democratic U.S. Senator Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee - the father of our current vice president - and his mythical "support" of civil rights.

In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Congressional Quarterly reported that, in the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as opposed to 80% of Republicans (138 for, 38 against). In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act.

In his remarks upon signing the Civil Rights Act, President Lyndon Johnson praised Republicans for their "overwhelming majority." He did not offer similar praise to his own Democratic Party. Moreover, Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, collaborated with the White House and the Senate leadership of both parties to draft acceptable compromise amendments to end the southern Democrats' filibuster of the Act. It was Dirksen who often took to the Senate floor to declare, "This is an idea whose time has come. It will not be denied." Dirksen's greatest triumph earned him the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award, presented by then-NAACP Chairman Roy Wilkins, for his remarkable civil rights leadership.

Inform yourself, so you can learn for yourself about this important historical event. All official records about the Civil Rights Act can be found in the June 1964 issues of Congressional Quarterly.

Al Gore, Sr. did not stop at simply voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, Congressional Quarterly reported that Gore attempted to send the Act to the Senate Judiciary Committee with an amendment to say "in defiance of a court desegregation order, federal funds could not be held from any school districts." Gore sought to take the teeth out of the Act in the event it passed.

Ostensibly, Senator Gore was "elated" at the idea of young Al, Jr. going to school with black children. In reality, however, the future vice president attended an elite private school.

In the end, the Gore Amendment was defeated by a vote of 74-25. Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, one of President Bill Clinton's political mentors, was among the 23 southern Democratic senators and only one Republican voting with Gore for this racist amendment.


And let's talk about the still serving Senator Byrd

At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities—including private businesses offering public services—such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.

As Senator Byrd took his seat, House members, former senators, and others—150 of them—vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.

Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the one-hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come." He continued, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"
Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

The clerk proceeded to call the roll. When he reached "Mr. Engle," there was no response. A brain tumor had robbed California's mortally ill Clair Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting a crippled arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote. Few of those who witnessed this heroic gesture ever forgot it. When Delaware's John Williams provided the decisive sixty-seventh vote, Majority Leader Mike Mansfield exclaimed, "That's it!"; Richard Russell slumped; and Hubert Humphrey beamed. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Nine days later the Senate approved the act itself—producing one of the twentieth century's towering legislative achievements.


A greater % of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.

As I am a registered independent, I could really care less about the petty squabbles concering the marginal differences between conservatives and liberals. The truth of the matter is that both parties view the tax payer as nothing more than a piece of meat roasting over an open fire, to be fed to whatever parasitic interests that give money to the respective parties and office holders.
 
Don't worry, ryanh ill find fault somewhere.
 
I confess I noticed that on a recent thread myself. Because of Southern Democrats, the Civil Rights Bill would not have been adopted without significant Republican support.
 
LOL........The writer of your source has misconstrued the facts, and his given a bias and unobjective interpretation of the real events.

First, Senator Gore lost re-election because of his support for Civil Rights.

Secondly, the facts speak for themselves:
Pres. Truman---supporter of Civil Rights/Democrat
Pres. Roosevelt--supporter of Civil Rights/Demcorat
Pres. Kennedy--laid the ground work for the Civil Rights Act of 1964/Democrat
Pres. Johnson--the REASON the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed/Democrat
Pres. Clinton---Began several initiatives on Race Relations/Democrat

Eisenhower---cared less about Civil Rights
Nixon---same
Reagan--same
Bush---same
current Bush--same

Thus, when the Republicans have had the "bully pulpit" what have they used it for? History shows us they seldom have ever used it for laws advancing equal rights, whereas history shows us that several Democratic Presidents have. (see above list).

And you want to use the aberration of Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but what you've left out is that they weren't necessarily willing participants....Pres. Johnson had to twist a lot of arms, and had to make a lot of favors to make it happen. Without Pres. John's determination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have never become law. Republicans were never the ring leader in the crusade for civil rights, in fact, Pres. Johnson was.

Were there racist Southern Democrats? Absolutely, but bare in mind almost all left the Democratic party.....i.e. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, and at this time a huge divide between the enlightened wing of the Democratic party and Southern Democrats had begun to take shape. Eventually, the Republican party began the home of Democrats who disagreed with its party's stances on Civil Rights and other important issues.

As for the accomplishments of both Pres. Kennedy and Johnson-- Kennedy had been the first president since Pres. Truman to champion equal rights for African- Americans. Pres. Johnson even helped engineer the Civil Rights Act of 1957, that had been a mild measure. Moreover, Pres. Johnson was the master of parliamentary procedure, and he used his considerable talents as well as the prestige of the presidency in support of the bill.
Pres. Johnson pulled every string he knew, and had the civil rights leaders mount a massive lobbying campaign, including inundating the Capitol with religious leaders of all faiths and colors.

Additionally, could you familiarize us with the background and political idealogy of the writer you've supported your argument with.

Again, "but for" President Johnson's tenacity and determintation, African-Americans would have never gained well-deserved rights.

Ryan.
 
Hey crab
I think you will find out as you read more threads by RyanH that he does have his troubles. As I have read a majority of his past posts, I find his views are always extremely slanted to the Liberal side(no big secret there) as we all know! The thing that I will find interesting, as he joins the American workforce, is how his views might change after he gets some years under his belt. I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with him because I've been there before and all he will do is simply ignore me and stop responding to my posts.
I admire you for doing your homework on this post! As usual, he will only respond to it and say your information is wrong and that "He will stand by what he posted."
 
HumorMe said:
The thing that I will find interesting, as he joins the American workforce, is how his views might change after he gets some years under his belt.

Regardless, his heart is in the right place. I hope the work place won't ruin his passion or compassion, and that it won't turn him into a money hungry right-wing zealot who uses religion to sway the masses.
 
HumorMe said:
Hey crab
I think you will find out as you read more threads by RyanH that he does have his troubles. As I have read a majority of his past posts, I find his views are always extremely slanted to the Liberal side(no big secret there) as we all know! The thing that I will find interesting, as he joins the American workforce, is how his views might change after he gets some years under his belt.

What does one's work history have to do with the topic of this thread? Further, you should not assume that I have never worked, particularly when you do not know me personally ....

Instead, of responding with arguments you resort to ad hominem attacks.:)
 
RyanH said:


Eisenhower---cared less about Civil Rights
Nixon---same
Reagan--same
Bush---same
current Bush--same


And you want to use the aberration of Republicans that voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but what you've left out is that they weren't necessarily willing participants....Pres. Johnson had to twist a lot of arms, and had to make a lot of favors to make it happen. Without Pres. John's determination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have never become law. Republicans were never the ring leader in the crusade for civil rights, in fact, Pres. Johnson was.


Your subjective criticism of the Republicans betrays your blatant bias. No facts at all. "cared less?" Cmon.

As a matter of fact, Eisenhower can be credited with integrating the Armed Forces, the elder Bush had the first black NSA and CJCS and the younger Bush has the first black Sec of State and a black NSA. But who's counting?

It is comical how you try to wish away what happened with the democrats during the CRA voting in 1964. I am glad someone else has finally pointed out that record as well as Sen Byrd's backround. He is the only former Klansman in Congress. He was a Grand Wizard!
 
Why is everyone so f'in serious? I swear, I come over here and read some of these posts and I get depressed. Everyone is going to have different viewpoints on what they think is right... liberals, conservatives, middle conservatives, the middle man, the mailman, even little Joey Horner down the street will all have a different take on the SAME set of facts.

Either way, I find that true ignorance comes when others are unaccepting of otherview points... and btw... ignorance isn't bliss... it's just ignorance...

C
 
ttlpkg said:
Nothing wrong with a little political discourse. It is the American way.

True, I don't mind arguements... life is full of them... sometimes, they are rather fun and intellecutally stimulating, forcing you to come up with a counter arguement worthy of your opponent.

I just do'nt understand how someone can be so dead set in their opinion so as to disregard everyone else's as unplausable. The American Way... well, hmm... Not quite sure where to go with that one... ;) There are many different interpretations depending on where you are... a Canadian or Japanese view of "the American Way" might be a little unflattering. :)

C
 
RyanH said:


Instead, of responding with arguments you resort to ad hominem attacks.:)


Ain't that some shit. Coming from the I win cause I babbled more cockeyed bullshit than him and don't care what you say. You know he's going to be one of those crooked ass lawyers that lie about how they really won all their cases but the jury was bought or conservative or yadayadayada. You are the reason politics are like they are. Can't keep it simple. Like in the Finding Forrester movie, somebody thinking they know why things happened like they did. You know shit, slick.
 
*Sits back and grabs some popcorn waiting for Spentagon's Reply*
 
RyanH said:


What does one's work history have to do with the topic of this thread? Further, you should not assume that I have never worked, particularly when you do not know me personally ....

Instead, of responding with arguments you resort to ad hominem attacks.:)

RyanH.....I wasn't resorting to attacking you! Sheesh! My post was addressed to Crab not RyanH and Strongchick. I've tried the "pissing contest" before and I have found like it was arguing with a rock, therefore, that was what I was referring to. As far as not knowing you, you are right I do not know you and don't want to know you as well as you don't want to know me! Again, I'm not attacking anybody here.
 
Kahn said:



Ain't that some shit. Coming from the I win cause I babbled more cockeyed bullshit than him and don't care what you say. You know he's going to be one of those crooked ass lawyers that lie about how they really won all their cases but the jury was bought or conservative or yadayadayada. You are the reason politics are like they are. Can't keep it simple. Like in the Finding Forrester movie, somebody thinking they know why things happened like they did. You know shit, slick.

Kahn tends to be one of my more harsher critics.:)
 
HumorMe said:


RyanH.....I wasn't resorting to attacking you! Sheesh! My post was addressed to Crab not RyanH and Strongchick. I've tried the "pissing contest" before and I have found like it was arguing with a rock, therefore, that was what I was referring to. As far as not knowing you, you are right I do not know you and don't want to know you as well as you don't want to know me! Again, I'm not attacking anybody here.

You insulted my hard work ethic, but that's O.K.
 
strongchick said:


Regardless, his heart is in the right place. I hope the work place won't ruin his passion or compassion, and that it won't turn him into a money hungry right-wing zealot who uses religion to sway the masses.

?


:confused:
 
No arguement - just rebuttal

Part of Ryan H's earlier post:

"African-Americans understand that it was the Republican Party of the 50's and 60's that they had to fight to obtain their voting and civil rights. Democrats embraced the Civil Rights crusade in this country and sent Democrats to help African-Americans obtain their civil rights."


No arguement, just rebuttal by facts.

No where in your earlier post did you even attempt to qualify the support for Civil Rights to Democratic presidents, nothern Democratic legislators, or rank and file Democrats. Nor did you give credit to Republican legislators who supported President Johnson.

As for twisting arms, it seems the strength of his fellow southern democrats, built up from decades of strong arming a signifcant percentage of the population, was so strong that not even southern president, of their own party, could twist their arms to do the right thing.

You'll make a fine member of the bar young man, as you don't lie, you just selectively edit.

As for the sources, I went to the search engine Google and typed in "1964 Civil Rights Senate Voting Record". Also, the Washington Post writers are not noted for their conservative stances. Perhaps you have that paper confused with the Washington Times.
 
I'm outta here for the night. But, expect a response tomorrow, and a truthful, unbiased, version of events that occured with the Voting Rights Act.:D
 
RyanH, why should Pres. Bush spend his time worrying about civil rights. There are far more better things to spend time and money on these days. Especially after Sept 11th. I'd rather have him spend his time on thinking of ways to Protect ALL Americans..Not just one race, color etc etc. And you cannot say he is unfair when it comes to race, he has 2 blacks holding very important positions in his cabinet.
The Government has done what It could to make civil rights as equal as possible for everyone. At this point without holding guns to peoples heads there are no ways to stop any type of discrimination at the personal level it exists at today. There will always be people hating one another.
 
More dirt on the Clinton/Gore era...His administration is responsible for:

The passage of the "salvage logging" rider that is causing the destruction of ancient public forests and critical watersheds.

The signing of the Panama Declaration, which undermines protection or marine mammals including dolphins and whales.

The continuation of the use of methyl bromide, a highly toxic pesticide known to destroy the Earth's ozone layer.

The weakening if not the gutting, of the Endangered Species Act through administrative changes in its rules and regulations.

The passage of NAFTA and GATT, international trade agreements that represent the biggest sellout of American workers in U.S. history and effectively remove environmental protections passed by Congress because any legislation deemed to "restrain free trade" can be declared illegal by international tribunals dominated by large scale corporate interests.

The lowering of grazing fees on public land, despite promises by candidate Clinton to raise those fees. As a result, Clinton is subsidizing the cattle industry while overtaxing people and land.

Continuing to subsidize the sugar industry in Florida, which is poisoning the Everglades and diverting large amounts of water needed by wildlife.

Opening wildlife refuges to hunting and fishing by presidential decrees.

Weakening the Safe Drinking Water Act by allowing increased levels of lead and arsenic in drinking water supplies.

Reversing the ban on the production of and importation of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), which may cause more than 40,000 fatalities in the Great Lakes region alone.

Increasing our dependence on Middle East Oil by breaking the promise to not allow the export of Alaskan oil.
 
crab3535 said:
As I am a registered independent, I could really care less about the petty squabbles concering the marginal differences between conservatives and liberals. The truth of the matter is that both parties view the tax payer as nothing more than a piece of meat roasting over an open fire, to be fed to whatever parasitic interests that give money to the respective parties and office holders.

It is so refreshing to see someone make an unbiased, factual post. BTW, I agree completely with your final statement.
 
"Regardless, his heart is in the right place. I hope the work place won't ruin his passion or compassion, and that it won't turn him into a money hungry right-wing zealot who uses religion to sway the masses."

HumorMe said:


HumorMe...that is Strongchicks response to everything...lol, it doesn't matter what the topic or facts are
 
Last edited:
Actually, ryanh, I have a lot of respect for most of what you say. I also recognize you as an intelligent person but its what you choose to be intrigued with that concerns me. A brain like yours could fix what is wrong with what you are interested in. You don't have quite enough brains for that, though, because you lack what I bitch about. What I criticized has not changed since the first time I gave you shit. You don't have the ability to have the ability to see yourself in anything but the most complimentary light. You most likely get a warm fuzzy glow about you when you look in the mirror. What will keep you from being great at what you do is the inate inability to do to yourself what you do to others. Humility is what you lack, its what makes you an ass.
 
Top Bottom