graham .....

Where on earth did you pull this out from?

You must be talking about the CONGRESS of the SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, right?

Or the PEOPLE'S CONGRESS in China, perhaps ....

Surely, you can't be talking about OUR United States Congress ....

And so ...

Arneoker .....

You are like a French chef in here, feeding us the barest snippets, when what we want is a full meal ....

And I am referring to the 14th Amendment, which states as follows in section 1:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

Now, Arneoker, that happens to be what is called in America ORGANIC LAW, or LAW OF THE LAND ....

It is what WE, THE PEOPLE say the law is going to be here in America ....

Neither Congress nor the president are free to disregard that language, although we both know that they do ....

You came along and posted section 5 of the 14th Amendment which states as follows:

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

But with respect to section 1, that is a redundency ....

And as you can see from this following, the U.S. Supreme Court is a great enemy of civil rights ....

AND ....

The real landmark legislation was the Civil Rights Act of 1957 ....

The horse's @$$ LBJ was not president in 1957 ...

His civil rights act followed that ....

It was not any kind of landmark .....

And so ..

SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT

Generally .--In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress, in addition to proposing to the States the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, enacted seven statutes designed in a variety of ways to implement the provisions of these Amendments.

Several of these laws were general civil rights statutes which broadly attacked racial and other discrimination on the part of private individuals and groups as well as by the States, but the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional or rendered ineffective practically all of these laws over the course of several years.

In the end, Reconstruction was abandoned and with rare exceptions no cases were brought under the remaining statutes until fairly recently.

Beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, however, Congress generally acted pursuant to its powers under the commerce clause until Supreme Court decisions indicated an expansive concept of congressional power under the Civil War Amendments, which culminated in broad provisions against private interference with civil rights in the 1968 legislation.

The story of these years is largely an account of the ''state action'' doctrine in terms of its limitation on congressional powers; lately, it is the still-unfolding history of the lessening of the doctrine combined with a judicial vesting of discretion in Congress to reinterpret the scope and content of the rights guaranteed in these three constitutional amendments.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...ent14/38.html#1

You keep thinking that if that's what makes you happy. After all, I haven't yet told my kids that the tooth fairy isn't real...

Civil Rights Act of 1964, a bill that changed the face of America. It opened all public accommodations -- hotels, restaurants, swimming pools -- to all Americans regardless of race, color, religion or national origin.

The bill also ended legal discrimination in employment on the basis of race or sex, and established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce the law. The signing ceremony represented a personal triumph for Johnson, who lobbied tirelessly on behalf of the bill. Recordings of the president's phone conversations reveal his relentless campaign to wrangle lawmakers in favor of the controversial bill.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3087021

HORSE HOCKEY ...

BALDERDASH ....

POPPYCOCK ....

It might have changed the face of Kansas, Texas, Virginia and backwards, benighted Alabama, states that practiced discrimination as a matter of state policy, but by 1964, at least up here in New York State, all public accommodations -- hotels, restaurants, swimming pools -- HAD BEEN OPEN to all Americans regardless of race, color, religion or national origin for some long time by then already, pursuant to OUR Constitutionand laws ...

And the same thing with ending legal discrimination in employment on the basis of race or sex ......

And so ...

There is a saying that, "Everything is bigger in Texas and better in New York."

Denial is not just a river in Egypt...

I mean honestly. The South was not chopped liver and the status of Black people there mattered. Things were hardly perfect in the North either, although relatively speaking things were better. Look, I know why you hate the man. And you know what, I don't blame you, and considering how you are a Vietnam vet I think you are entitled to your hate. If you cannot consider LBJ without his accomplishments in civil rights you cannot consider him without the bloody mess he made with Vietnam. Who am I to lecture someone that the former outweighed the latter? But I am entitled to my own views, as others are. And all of the above does not mean one should get a pass in distorting history.

It would be pretty hard to present a case that the CRA of 1964 wasn't the big one. I mean without being laughed at.

we interupt this thread for this public service announcement-


hey livyjr- you are going to ruin your credibiltiy as an expert on the law when you distort something out of your hatred of a single person
you did with this Judge Sonia, you do it with LBJ

and its not fair for your beloved readers, who believe in you and what you write, because they may just take it as fact what you are writing, solely becuase it is you saying it

you have a moral obligation and responsibility for those people and to those people to uphold the truth
Otherwise, you are nothing more than the Bush rove commujnication propaganda machine

and we love and admire you for being so much better than them

now back to your regular programs already in progress

It is the single most important event and bill of the later half of the 20th century and beyond
and of course, without it, events in 2008 never would have happened.

and the man that made it come true was LBJ (not to take anything away from the people who made it come to the point where it was there)
and he didn't have to do it
He did it because he wanted to do it, knowing politically what the future would hold in store, he still did it

It was the only route he had available to him to be accepted by the Democratic Party outside the
South and he could see where southern whites were going...It was the only way he had to protect his power and prestige, and he still lost it because he was lacking in moral maturity...

If that were true he would have just accepted what Congress came up with. He wouldn't have pushed the legislation, like he actually did. I think part of maturity is seeing that, even if one doesn't like him for other, even good, reasons.

Apparently you prefer to discuss my moral maturity (or lack there of) than LBJ's which would be OK except I'm not the topic...

LBJ memories were set for many during the democratic run for office and convention of 1960. The choice of LBJ as vice-presidential nomination.
"chief convention rival was Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, who had the support of the South and the party's more conservative elements. At the last minute, an unexpected development jeopardized Kennedy's almost certain nomination: A strong drive to "draft" Adlai Stevenson for a 3rd try as Democratic standard-bearer began to drain liberal strength from Kennedy. Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota gave an impassioned nominating speech for Stevenson, and in the convention's longest and most emotional floor demonstration, delegates and the public showed their support for the Illinois leader. In the face of all this, Stevenson's repeated assurances that he was not a candidate began to lose credibility. Nevertheless, Kennedy's support remained surprisingly firm, and when the 1st roll call reached Wyoming, everyone at the convention knew that those 15 votes would put JFK over the top. As the convention paused in silence for a moment, the candidate's brother Teddy, in the middle of the Wyoming delegation, urged its members to use their votes to name a President. When the chairman of the delegation announced that all 15 votes went to the Kennedy column, the convention went wild as JFK was nominated on the 1st ballot. The next day, in a bid for party unity and Southern support, Kennedy asked that Lyndon Johnson be named as his running mate. Despite complaints from organized labor and Stevensonian liberals, this choice was finally accepted by the convention.
http://www.trivia-library.com/a/president-...-nomination.htm
_______________________________


LBJ was an effective legislature that showed his drive and compassion in his efforts to pass civil rights bills.

Grew up in the 50s in NYC - bastion of liberalism. Somehow, every night, by magic, all the black people were back up in Harlem. If they were roaming around in "white" neigborhoods, they would be rousted by the cops.

Oh, we had a few token showbiz types down in whiteyland, but racism was alive and well in NYC.

Upstate? Well, Liv, that's no better.

Not in Ithaca, NY during the 60s. I think Cornell might have had 50 black students, and 45 of them were the sons of African diplomats. They all spoke with a British accent.

And Ithaca had its "dark town".

At least we used our white sheets only to sleep on.

Let's not get our northern noses too high in the air.

Arne is right - Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

You know, jeffmoskin, I was alive back then ....

In 1964, I mean ....

And I never was aware of any black person up here who was discriminated against in such a way as you were saying ....

Blacks went to school with whites ....

I never saw them being run out of town ....

I was not down in NYC, so I don't know what was going on down there, nor was I in Ithaca, either, so I can't say what went on there, either, but I do know what went on up here and I know what the NY Constitution had to say about it ....

Blacks in NYS were as equal and as entitled as everyone else, which includes the Irish who were discriminated against quite heavily, and the Italians who were discriminated against and the French Canadians, who were discriminated against ....

What I do recall from back then, and rla nails it, I would say, is just how fed up people were up here with what they were seeing on TV from down south in places like Alabama ....

I did not grow up in a family that discriminated, nor was discrimination tolerated ....

People, including you and Arneoker are making it out as if LBJ was doing something single-handed here, all on his own ....

As if he were going up against the entire country ....

AND THAT IS BULL****, plain and simple ....

People in America were damn sick and tired of racial discrimination and I would say if anyone deserves credit for the Civil Rights Act, it is the American people themselves who were against discrimination and wouldn't let LBJ off the hook ....

There also was not a lot of love for Texas back then, either, because it was the state that hated JFK and it is where he was killed, after being warned to not go down to that hate-filled place ....

So I would say that Texan LBJ really had no choice, just as rla is saying above here ....

He could have sided with the southerns and divided the nation ....

Or he could side with the people who saw blacks as equal as anyone else in America .....

I would say he chose the latter course ....

So outside of being an astutue politician, what does that really make him?

Certainly not some noble hero who stood up to a whole country as you and Arneoker would have him be ....

And I think all this revisionism and rehabilitation of LBJ today is because Obama is now being compared to him ....

And so ...

Ithaca is not "upstate" ....

And I won't argue about NYC being a racist town ....

And so ...

I DID NOT got to Cornell because I was poor white trash and I never could have scraped up the geetus to go to a costly school like that ....

I suspect a lot of blacks did not go there for the same reason ....

However, Cornell did not keep them out, did it?

Did Cornell say that NO N-WORDS are allowed prior to 1964?

I think you were graduating from there in 1964, jeffmoskin, so you would know ....

And so ...

this is bullcrap
let me say it again

this is bullcrap

HE DID IT
and HE WANTED TO DO IT

and he had the capital to do it when he did it

that is the damn shame in 2009 that Obama had to waste his capital because BushCneney left it so bad there wasn't time enough for everything and the capital window probably already is closed
Obama could have gotten single payer if he wanted it had they done it quick and easy in Feb/March/April
that or getting out of the wars
or overturning the Patriot act
but the door closed shut thanks to people like you livyjr...if you want credit, I will give you the credit

and livyjr, your town in a way is a throwback to the "Norman Rockwell" type of town, mostly gone these days

No argument whatsoever, graham ...

Gone is the operative word ....

Gone with the wind ....

And so ...

Thanks for your vote of confidence here, graham, but it is both misplaced and toally undeserved by me ....

I can't take any credit for Obama's screw-ups or shortcomings ....

But he and David Axelrod can ...

And really should ...

And so ...

in some ways the place I moved to in NJ is like that
there are good points
however, that presents a whole nother set of bad points

I TOTALLY AGREE, graham ....

AND SO I HAVE DONE ....

And so ...

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Civil Rights

“I believe as long as we allow conditions to exist that make for second-class citizens, we are making of ourselves less than first-class citizens.”

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

(Remarks at the United Negro College Fund luncheon, May 19, 1953)

Eisenhower was a product of his time and its attitudes regarding race.

He was also aware of the discrimination and segregation that African Americans faced daily, and he viewed this racism as a most unfortunate and damaging aspect of our democratic society.

In evaluating Eisenhower’s responses to civil rights questions, his actions speak louder than words.

Many of his actions are consistent with his belief that federal institutions must be at the forefront of upholding the ideal of racial equality.

As a result, he was able to achieve more toward making equal treatment a civil right for minority Americans than any of his presidential predecessors since Reconstruction.

Eisenhower favored a patient, constitutionalist approach that would avoid a violent disruption of Southern society.

However, by the mid-1950s he realized that he would have no control over the pace of integration, and he responded with actions and proposed legislative initiatives to provide racial equality.

He was not successful in getting sweeping reforms passed by Congress, but he did build a sturdy foundation upon which more comprehensive changes were made in the years following his presidency.

Consider the following:

Eisenhower appointed California Governor Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Warren molded a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, striking down public school segregation.

Eisenhower also appointed outstanding jurists such as Potter Stewart, William Brennan, John Marshall Harlan II, and Charles Evans Whittaker to the Warren court.

Eisenhower was consistently careful to appoint to the southern districts federal judges who were solidly committed to equal rights, fighting southern senators to get them confirmed.

When enforcement of future civil rights laws came before the district courts in the 1960s, they were upheld by progressive judges – Frank Johnson, Jr., and Elbert Parr Tuttle, for instance – appointed by Eisenhower years earlier.

Eisenhower’s judicial appointments constitute a significant contribution to civil rights.

Eisenhower achieved Congressional passage of the first civil rights legislation in the 82 years following Reconstruction.

The Senate at first refused to pass the bill, which included both voting rights and a provision authorizing the Attorney General to protect all civil rights.

Eventually, Congress approved the Civil Rights Act of 1957 without overall civil rights protection.

This was a much weaker law than what Eisenhower had advocated.

In 1960, Eisenhower was successful in getting Congress to pass additional voting rights legislation.

These laws were the precedents for the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

Eisenhower implemented the integration of the U.S. military forces.

Although President Truman issued Executive Order 9981 (1948) to desegregate the military services, his administration had limited success in realizing it.

As a life-long soldier, Dwight Eisenhower knew intimately the reality of racial intolerance in the military.

As president, he commanded compliance from subordinates and was able to overcome the deeply rooted racial institutions in the military establishment.

By October 30, 1954, the last racially segregated unit in the armed forces had been abolished, and all federally controlled schools for military dependent children had been desegregated.

Eisenhower sent elements of the 101st Airborne Division to carry out the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court, when Orval Faubus of Arkansas openly defied a federal court order to integrate Little Rock Central High, an all-white high school.

This act, the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were deployed to a former Confederate state, was condemned by many at the time, but it established that southern states could not use force to defeat the Constitution.

Eisenhower was the first president to elevate an African-American to an executive level position in the White House.

In July 1955, President Eisenhower appointed E. Frederic Morrow, a graduate of Bowdoin College and the Rutgers University Law School, as Administrative Officer for Special Projects.

Eisenhower worked to achieve full integration in the nation’s capital from his first day in office until the end of his administration.

The President approached this task from several different angles.

He appointed pro-desegregation district government officials and directed the Justice Department to argue in favor of desegregation in the Supreme Court.

One of the results of judicial actions he instigated was the Supreme Court’s Thompson decision which desegregated Washington restaurants.

He personally cajoled, persuaded, and pressured local government administrators, motion picture moguls, and business men in meetings at the White House.

By the time Eisenhower left Washington, the Capital of the United States was transformed from an entirely segregated to an almost fully integrated city.

Eisenhower established the first comprehensive regulations prohibiting racial discrimination in the federal workforce.

He established presidential committees that set standards and pressured governments agencies and businesses with government contracts to end racial discrimination in employment.

Eisenhower was the first president since Reconstruction to meet personally in the White House with black civil rights leaders.

He discussed national policy on civil rights with Martin Luther King, Jr., A. Philip Randolph, Roy Wilkins, and Lester B. Granger.

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/Civil-Rights.htm

This is getting too ugly for me. I'll just bow out by saying that I personally rang doorbells in 1964 for LBJ because he said he "would not send American boys 10000 miles away to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves".

OKAY.

HE LIED.

And I hate him for doing that.

But he did a lot of good things.

And one "ah sh*t" does NOT wipe the slate clean.

What is ugly, jeffmoskin, is the way history continually gets twisted all around in here to elevate DEMOCRATS up to positions of near deity, while demeaning others such as Eisenhower who made positive contributions to our society over here ...

If it was not for Dwight David Eisenhower, Barack Obama would not be able to eat in a WHITES ONLY resturant in the capital of the United States of America ....

And IF LBJ, who was not even a real president in the sense of having been elected, had great vision, it was because he was standing on the shoulders of Eisenhower, and was completing work that Eisenhower had started ....

And so ...

I don't get you livyjr

Eisenhower was lied to and he lied many times more

and a general obeys orders from a president

NO general should be president it is a conflict of interest

Eisenhower was like Reagan, a dufus who smiled

today, no bald man could ever become president or cut someones hair even

What is interesting is how setting the historical record straight in here to counter obvious DEMOCRAT propaganda and blatant DEMOCRAT revisionism is deemed UGLY ....

And so ...

graham ....

I don't get you ...

WHY do you HATE bald men so?

Telly Savalas was bald, graham ....

Why do you hate Telly Savalas now?

graham ....

Dear gentle graham ....

WHAT have these DEMOCRATS done to your mind with their continual blasts of HATE MAIL that has turned you against Telly Savalas so?

OH, POOR DEAR GENTLE graham ....

And graham, are you still checking in the mirror to see if your eyes are getting smaller and moving closer together?

Would you tell us if you were really growing black and white hair all over your body and growing a snout?

Oh, graham, I do so hope you don't get afflicted with these side effects of your swine flu shot ...

And so ...

OH, graham ....

Poor dear deluded gentle graham ....

WHERE IS THE LIE IN THIS FOLLOWING SENTENCE:

“I believe as long as we allow conditions to exist that make for second-class citizens, we are making of ourselves less than first-class citizens.”

Do you see what Arneoker is saying here, graham ...

About how one should not distort history because one has put one's blind faith and trust and hope into the hands of the DEMOCRAT PARTY OF AMERICA AND THE WORLD?

And I would have to say that on this, at least I have COMMON GROUND with Arneoker, especially as I was alive back when a lot of this stuff was going down, like Eisenhower using military force down there in rla's beloved Arkansas ....

I can remember sitting there transfixed, watching that on television back then ...

And I had an uncle who was serving with the 101st, so it came home that way too ....

I think that a lot of people back then thought that Eisenhower should just drop the BIG ONE on Arkansas and make glass out of the place, but Eisenhower had a cool head, and did not simply give in to the public clamor to wipe Arkansas right off the face of the map ....

AND WHERE IS THE LIE IN EISENHOWER SENDING FEDERAL TROOPS INTO ARKANSAS, graham?

And so ...

LAUGH AWAY, Arneoker ....

It is very good therapy for stress relief, you know ....

And so ...

why don't you start an Eisenhower thread

this is an LBJ thread

maybe I will start a stevenson would have made one of our ten best president threads had the negative IKE campaign not tried to destroy the great patriot

Well, graham ....

What this really is is a thread that started out distorting American history in an attempt to rehabilitate LBJ because Barack Hussein Obama is now starting to draw comparisons to LBJ and the DEMOCRATS at DEMOCRAT CENTRAL are worried about that comparison, since many loyal and good Americans look at LBJ the same way that I do - a horse's ass who was not elected president, but came into office under questionable circumstances in his home state that were quite fortuitous to LBJ, who like George W. Bush on 9-11, had a handy alibi ....

And what I have done, in my turn, as a good and true American not affilitated with either the DEMOCRATS or the REPUBLICANS is to counter the DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA and HISTORY DISTORTION with some facts ....

So you are entirely correct ....

THIS IS INDEED A THREAD ABOUT LBJ ....

And I truly believe, graham, that you should get a discussion group going on Adilai Stevenson ....

I would like to hear your point of view myself, to see in what direction it will head ....

As I understand it, your premise will be that all of the very important civil rights work that Eisenhower did was really the product of Adilai Stevenson, but that Eisenhower stole his ideas from him and used them for his own, including sending the military into rla's beloved state of Arkansas ....

I believe Stevenson was a member of the NUKE ARKANSAS crowd back then, wasn't he?

I think it was that extremism on Stevenson's part that lost him the election, graham ....

Coupled with the fact that he was not bald ....

And so ...

how can I possibly follow that?
for once, words fail me...

alas
ala
al
a

Actually, graham, for twice now, at least, words have failed you, and I am referring to this jeffmoskin post above here where he admits that NYC, while calling itself a liberal bastion, was in reality a seething pit of racial prejudice, very unlike where I am up here to the north of NYC in conservative country where the black folks are as equal as everyone else .....

I notice that you made no effort whatsoever to contradict him, which speaks volumes, actually graham ....

Because you know yourself as a native New Yorker the truth of what he is saying ....

It's something, isn't it, graham how attitudes towards our fellow human beings can be so far different as between here and NYC?

NYC is only about 120 miles from here as the crow flies, assuming a crow would ever want to fly down to NYC for some reason, and yet, it might as well be on the far side of the moon when it comes to race relations and blatant discrimination .....

That post helps me to better understand why you so hate the white folks and cops down there in NYC, graham ....

The bullying must have been terrible .....

I'm glad that you were finally able to get out of the place, myself .....

It sounds as bad for a black dude down there as it was in the nation's capital back before Dwight David Eisenhower integrated Washington, D.C. ....

Too bad he wasn't able to integrate New York City, too ....

But he was only a man, graham ....

He wasn't a GOD ....

Nor obviously was he a MESSIAH to the poor beleaguered black folks of New York City ....

And so ....

but in the mid 1960s and 1970s, while every other big city had riots, NYC didn't

thanks to John V. Lindsay, perhaps the single greatest mayor in the history of the world, and one of the greatest hearts ever in the world.
May he rest in peace.

graham ....

There were race riots in Brooklyn in August 1991 ....

And so ...

I found this interesting too, graham ....

jeffmoskin leaving here because I brought up the fact that PWT's in America did not go to Cornell, where jeffmoskin went to school ...

Do you think that was discrimination on the part of Cornell, graham?

Or just CLUBBYNESS and SNOBBERY?

And so ...

I specifically said 60s 70s
have you lost your glasses?

and Rudy was the one that caused the riots, the racist little fascist that he is
they threw his police guy in jail the other day

ever wonder why Rudy was in and out of the wtc, but he was not one of the ones ended up like the 3000 Bush killed?

My glasses are right here on my face, graham, where they were when I wrote that reply after using them to read what you had said in your plug of John Lindsey ....

I thought you were purposefully trying to deflect attention away from these Crown Point Riots by treating them as if they had never happened ...

That made me quite curious, because in here, you never do something for nothing .....

And I wonder why you would want to cover up this blatant racism in NYC that you have yourself been a victim of ....

And so ...

if you remember a Jew ran over a black and police did nothing
that is what started that
don't let a fact get in the way of a nice story
but I wasn't talking about the 80s or 90s...that is the Clintonera, I would rather forget those years entirely, those Rudy and Pataki years

you still never told me, how did Pataki get his job in the first place?

Because I still don't know ....

I don't swim down in the sewers where those kinds of deals and bargains are made ....

And so ...

I believe, graham, that that is a vivid example of the blatant anti-black racism lingering on in NYC in 1991 that jeffmoskin said existed in NYC in 1964 ....

And so ...

LBJ was a real person with a real heart, a real liberal and he cared about doing the right thing, not about politics, like the pansy people that took office from Reagan to Bush41 to Clinton to Bush43 and in the future Jeb.

I would take LBJ back, hell, I would take Nixon back.
Alot better than the Bush's or the Clinton's.

LBJ did what was right. Not what was politically motivated.

I always preface police stories with how racist the KKKops are in NYC
after all, innocent human beings get shot 41 and 50 times in NYC if their skin is black
I don't ever recall a cop mistakenly killing a white person for standing in his apartment building foyer, or on the stoop
Don't recall it ever happening to a white person

(not quite sure what this has to do with the topic at hand, but doesn't matter, and I did start an Adlai thread by the way)

I was alive back then, graham ...

When JFK got capped, I mean, and LBJ ascended the throne to replace him ....

I was in a study hall in HS when word came in that Kennedy had been shot down in LBJ's Texas ....

A friend of mine and I looked at each other and said, "WOW, THEY DID IT!"

And it was like going from day into night when LBJ replaced Kennedy ....

They were polar opposites to me ....

Kennedy was lean and athletic and outgoing ...

LBJ was large and oafish and ungainly with his big donkey ears, and he seemed the epitome of a real thug ....

LBJ reminded me back then of somebody that you would have expected to see in the Moscow Kremlin as opposed to the United States White House ....

Isn't it something how our perceptions of those times vary, graham?

Probably because you were down in NYC, and I wasn't ....

And so ...

Well, it has everything to do with the topic at hand since according to Arneoker, LBJ ended all of that with his alleged landmark civil rights legislation in 1964 ....

So none of that really could have happened after 1964, graham ...

The police could not have shot those black dudes all those times subsequent to 1964 since LBJ made that kind of conduct against the law in 1964 in his landmark civil rights legislation ....

And I saw the thread on Stevenson and I contributed already ....

But thanks for mentioning it, in case others like Arneoker haven't seen it ....

I'm sure that he will have something quite cogent and pithy to add to the discussion over there ...

And so ...

yeah, we see it different,but you have a different motivation for hating him that I understand, though I wonder even if you agreed with me, if you
would allow yourself to agree with me on a public board...I think you would think some would say you are betraying them, so you wouldn't.

I would say back that very moment, most people wanted Kennedy alive, not dead, and did not want LBJ, obviously

but looking at it as it happened, I still believe even if JFK or RFK wanted it, it wouldn't have happened

LBJ did it at the exact moment he could.

As for LBJ's big ears? Well,Clark Gable and bING Crosby had big ears too.

but in seeing what came after Nixon, the Bush's and Clinton's, well, I would take LBJ and Nixon back over the Bush's and Clinton's anyday

and LBJ did what was right, when it was needed, at the time he could get it through, and he didn't have to if he didn't want to, but he did.

but I do think that the Bush's learned something after JFK was killed, they learned the unexected unintended consequences of the act.
That being that LBJ did it.
So I think that has been why noone has met JFK's fate in the presidency since.
because they now use the Jimmy Carter mocking and character assasssination method to break down people's love for them, so they turn back to the old Bush/Reagan type crap that people threw out in the first place.

People is stupid. if you get what I mean here.