PAC12 v SEC

[Orange]

On 9/11/2022 at 4:57 PM, HLB said:

Democrats secured Civil Rights?

The Civil Rights Act of 1957, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican) on September 9, 1957, was the first federal civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to become law. After the Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, Southern Democrats began a campaign of "massive resistance" against desegregation, and even the few moderate white leaders shifted to openly racist positions.^[10][11] Partly in an effort to defuse calls for more far-reaching reforms, Eisenhower proposed a civil rights bill that would increase the protection of African American voting rights.

DEMOCRATS tried to block the Civil Rights Bill of 1964.

 

Passage in the Senate[edit]

 

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964, listening to the Senate debate on the bill. The two met for only one minute.^[27]

Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that it would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was chaired by James O. Eastland, a Democrat from Mississippi, whose firm opposition made it seem impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being kept in limbo by the Judiciary Committee: initially waiving a second reading immediately after the first reading, which would have sent it to the Judiciary Committee, he took the unprecedented step of giving the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, thereby bypassing the Judiciary Committee, and sending it to the Senate floor for debate immediately.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and lone Republican John Tower of Texas, led by Richard Russell, launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.^[28] Russell proclaimed, "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states."^[29][30]

Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator Strom Thurmond, who was still a Democrat at the time: "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals [sic], which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."^[31]

After the filibuster had gone on for 54 days, Senators Mansfield, Hubert Humphrey, Everett Dirksen, and Thomas Kuchel introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would overcome it by combining a sufficient number of Republicans as well as core liberal Democrats. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version as to the government's power in regulating the conduct of private business, but not weak enough to make the House reconsider it.^[32]

Senator Robert Byrd ended his filibuster in opposition to the bill on the morning of June 10, 1964, after 14 hours and 13 minutes. Up to then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. The day before, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill's manager, concluded that he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never before in its entire history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to defeat a filibuster on a civil rights bill, and only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.^[33]

 

Hey dumbfuck, look up "dixiecrats". 

[HLB]

On 9/12/2022 at 9:41 AM, Orange said:

Hey dumbfuck, look up "dixiecrats". 

Why don't you look up history.  You refuse to accept the truths that are so widely known by the most casual citizen.

[Orange]

On 9/12/2022 at 3:28 PM, HLB said:

Why don't you look up history.  You refuse to accept the truths that are so widely known by the most casual citizen.

Yeah, that's usually the problem.  "Casual citizens" can't think critically.  Take this over to the politics board and I'll give you a free lesson.  There is WAY too much you fucked up for me to quickly correct you here.

[azgreg]

On 9/12/2022 at 3:57 PM, Orange said:

Yeah, that's usually the problem.  "Casual citizens" can't think critically.  Take this over to the politics board and I'll give you a free lesson.  There is WAY too much you fucked up for me to quickly correct you here.

He'll never understand the concept of racial realignment of the two parties. He'll be better sticking with a topic he's far more familiar with like cousin fvcking.

 

[MrBug708]

I'm gonna leave the bitching in this thread, probably remove it from the others and keep it mostly sports related.

[HLB]

On 9/12/2022 at 6:16 PM, azgreg said:

He'll never understand the concept of racial realignment of the two parties. He'll be better sticking with a topic he's far more familiar with like cousin fvcking.

 

I'm a black man.  You have no clue what I do and don't know; nor what I've faced and have had to overcome.  And it wasn't the Republicans of the 60's, 70's, etc. that I, and my family, had to overcome.  It was the Democrats that didn't want me to use their restrooms, sit at their table, sit in the front of the 'their' bus, attend 'their' schools, and etc.  It was the Democrats that required that of me, my parents, and other family members.  You also probably don't know that Martin Luther King was a Republican either.

What is laughable is the fact that you, coming from AZ and @Orange coming from Oregon, are from states where the African American population is less than 5% in AZ and 2% in Oregon.  In short, you really don't know what racism is, or who the bad actors actually are, because you live in an environment that is predominately (by a large margin) "white".

At the same time, AZ's white population has a history that goes back to the early 1900's of not embracing Native American Indians.

[HLB]

On 9/12/2022 at 10:05 PM, MrBug708 said:

I'm gonna leave the bitching in this thread, probably remove it from the others and keep it mostly sports related.

Thank you.

[Orange]

On 9/16/2022 at 7:18 PM, HLB said:

I'm a black man. 
 

liar.  

On 9/16/2022 at 7:18 PM, HLB said:

You have no clue what I do and don't know; nor what I've faced and have had to overcome.  And it wasn't the Republicans of the 60's, 70's, etc. that I, and my family, had to overcome.  It was the Democrats that didn't want me to use their restrooms, sit at their table, sit in the front of the 'their' bus, attend 'their' schools, and etc.  It was the Democrats that required that of me, my parents, and other family members.  You also probably don't know that Martin Luther King was a Republican either.

Jesus fuck, where do you get this shit?  No he wasn’t.   LBJ signed a civil rights act that a majority of republicans opposed but you think King was a Republican???

https://www.britannica.com/story/was-martin-luther-king-jr-a-republican-or-a-democrat

The only democrats who opposed civil rights were southern democrats   Then the entire conservative south switched to the GOP because that’s where racists could find a home   

 

On 9/16/2022 at 7:18 PM, HLB said:

What is laughable is the fact that you, coming from AZ and @Orange coming from Oregon, are from states where the African American population is less than 5% in AZ and 2% in Oregon.  In short, you really don't know what racism is, or who the bad actors actually are, because you live in an environment that is predominately (by a large margin) "white".

At the same time, AZ's white population has a history that goes back to the early 1900's of not embracing Native American Indians.

Blah blah blah, tell us more, Blacks For Trump.  

[KUGRDON]

The final vote on Civil Right Act of 1964:

Senate

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%
•  
• House:^[3]
• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

 

[Orange]

On 9/17/2022 at 10:20 AM, KUGRDON said:

The final vote on Civil Right Act of 1964:

Senate

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%
•  
• House:^[3]
• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

 

Exactly, more democrats voted for the bill than republicans, and it wasn’t close.  The dems who didn’t were by and large southern democrats, I.e. today’s republicans.  Thanks for the backup, but I didn’t need it against this turnip.   

[KUGRDON]

You said a majority of Republicans voted against it.  Clearly false.  A larger majority of Republicans voted for the CRA than Democrats.

No surprise here, you still make stuff up, been doin it for over 20 years.  Lol

[dtd]

On 9/17/2022 at 8:23 PM, Orange said:

Exactly, more democrats voted for the bill than republicans, and it wasn’t close.  The dems who didn’t were by and large southern democrats, I.e. today’s republicans.  Thanks for the backup, but I didn’t need it against this turnip.   

 

On 9/17/2022 at 10:34 PM, KUGRDON said:

You said a majority of Republicans voted against it.  Clearly false.  A larger majority of Republicans voted for the CRA than Democrats.

No surprise here, you still make stuff up, been doin it for over 20 years.  Lol

The problem here is that you're either an idiot, or playing dumb. I can excuse just being stupid, but ignoring reality or being willfully ignorant is shameful behavior. You probably think Lincoln was a modern day republican because those were the letters used to spell the name of the political party he belonged to.