Question for at least 2 cons (racist, how much, parties, state)

[T-310]

Thread fail...................

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by mmmjv

Two of the cons here have stated in 2 different threads that Democrats opposed the 1964 Civil Rights act. I won't say who they are cause I don't think that's allowed but for those 2 and also anybody else who claims that Democrats opposed the 1964 CRA I have one question. Did Democrats support of oppose the Iraq Resolution of 2002?

It was a Republican sponsored bill, first brought to the floor of the Senate, from the house, in 1957. At which time, JFK, the Senator from Massachusetts, voted, NO.

LBJ, got removed as the Democrat front runner for the 68 elections. Everything was put in place to primary him, so he decided not to run for re-election. All because he signed the Civil rights act over party disapproval.

[whogo]

Originally Posted by BentBow

LBJ, got removed as the Democrat front runner for the 68 elections. Everything was put in place to primary him, so he decided not to run for re-election. All because he signed the Civil rights act over party disapproval.

As much as I can't stand the Dems that is total BS. It was the war that led to Johnson's decision not to run.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by whogo

As much as I can't stand the Dems that is total BS. It was the war that led to Johnson's decision not to run.

While it is a bit more complex than that, it is true that the pressure of the war was likely the prime motivator.

Overall, it was the loss of President Johnson's liberal consensus that probably pained him the most.

He was being attacked from within his own party - and from without.

How much his civil rights accomplishments had to do with that - Harrier doesn't know.

A presidency such as his cannot be summed up in a sound bite.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by KUchief25

Dems in senate supported the resolution 29-21
Dems in house did not support resolution 126-81

Your vote totals dont add up.

there were 65 Democratic senators in 1964, your vote total only = 50

There where 258 in the House, your total only equals 207.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by BentBow

It was a Republican sponsored bill, first brought to the floor of the Senate, from the house, in 1957. At which time, JFK, the Senator from Massachusetts, voted, NO.

LBJ, got removed as the Democrat front runner for the 68 elections. Everything was put in place to primary him, so he decided not to run for re-election. All because he signed the Civil rights act over party disapproval.

LOL, the vietnam war was the reason LBJ didnt run in 1968, not the Civil rights act, heck that doesnt even make sense considering in 1964 elections, The Democrats gained 40 seats in the House bringing their total to 295, and won 3 seats in the Senate , bringing their total to 65.

PBut if you honeslty believe LBJ didnt run 4 years later because of the civil rights act, please post something that actually backs up your claim, because it seems the electorate actually rewarded Democrats 5 months later.

[michiganmoon]

Originally Posted by mmmjv

They voted AGAINST it. There's a reason your link only shows the Senate vote

Here's the rest of it
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455

111 voted for it, 147 voted against it. Those of us who can do very basic math call that voting against

The Democrats could have blocked the Iraq vote - but the Democrat leaders voted for the war - some of them lie and claim that they voted against it - knowing that their sheep are gullible enough to buy the lie hook line and sinker.

Democrats controlled the White House, Senate, and House for 2 years and could have ended the war quicker, but Obama and the Democrats decided to follow Bush's withdrawal timeline and actually extend it. Democrats also chose to:
1) escalate the War in Afghanistan
2) renew the Patriot Act
3) increase drone use
4) keep Gitmo Open
5) increase the number of foreign military bases
6) continued use of torture

etc...a lot of talk and hypocrisy

http://stpeteforpeace.org/factsheets/obama.html

[gmagoo]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

The Democrats could have blocked the Iraq vote - but the Democrat leaders voted for the war - some of them lie and claim that they voted against it - knowing that their sheep are gullible enough to buy the lie hook line and sinker.

Democrats controlled the White House, Senate, and House for 2 years and could have ended the war quicker, but Obama and the Democrats decided to follow Bush's withdrawal timeline and actually extend it. Democrats also chose to:
1) escalate the War in Afghanistan
2) renew the Patriot Act
3) increase drone use
4) keep Gitmo Open
5) increase the number of foreign military bases
6) continued use of torture

etc...a lot of talk and hypocrisy

St. Pete for Peace - Obama fact sheet

There was never a vote to go to war. The resolution was designed to show Saddam that America would go to war if Iraq refused to let weapons inspectors into the country. The strategy worked of course because SH did allow Hans Blix and his team of inspectors into the country and they found nothing. Gomer the war criminal went on a killing spree anyway.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

The Democrats could have blocked the Iraq vote - but the Democrat leaders voted for the war - some of them lie and claim that they voted against it - knowing that their sheep are gullible enough to buy the lie hook line and sinker.

Democrats controlled the White House, Senate, and House for 2 years and could have ended the war quicker, but Obama and the Democrats decided to follow Bush's withdrawal timeline and actually extend it. Democrats also chose to:
1) escalate the War in Afghanistan
2) renew the Patriot Act
3) increase drone use
4) keep Gitmo Open
5) increase the number of foreign military bases
6) continued use of torture

etc...a lot of talk and hypocrisy

St. Pete for Peace - Obama fact sheet

You seem madder at Democrats for continuation than you do with Republicans for starting it.

Also, which Democrats lied about their votes ??

[mmmjv]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

The Democrats could have blocked the Iraq vote - but the Democrat leaders voted for the war - some of them lie and claim that they voted against it - knowing that their sheep are gullible enough to buy the lie hook line and sinker.

Democrats controlled the White House, Senate, and House for 2 years and could have ended the war quicker, but Obama and the Democrats decided to follow Bush's withdrawal timeline and actually extend it. Democrats also chose to:
1) escalate the War in Afghanistan
2) renew the Patriot Act
3) increase drone use
4) keep Gitmo Open
5) increase the number of foreign military bases
6) continued use of torture

etc...a lot of talk and hypocrisy

St. Pete for Peace - Obama fact sheet

Blocked how?? Filibuster???? The filibuster is only supposed to be sparingly. Not filibustering a bill doesn't mean you support it. In fact back in the olden days it wasn't all that unusual for a Senator to vote to break the filibuster and then vote against the bill