Common Ground Common Sense > LBJ was a great, caring emotional human being

Livyjr

Nov 8 2009, 05:54 PM

QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 8 2009, 05:48 PM)

yeah, we see it different, but you have a different motivation for hating him that I understand ...

I don't hate LBJ, graham ...

I simply have no respect for him whatsoever ....

And much of that comes from my perceptions of the man long before I ever went to Viet Nam ....

Viet Nam became a kind of capper, if you know what I mean ....

And so ...

Arneoker

Nov 8 2009, 06:31 PM

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Nov 8 2009, 08:55 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Nov 7 2009, 07:58 AM)

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.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Nov 7 2009, 06:44 PM)

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 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.

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

LAUGH AWAY, Arneoker ....

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

And so ...

Sometimes it is not a matter of what is good for someone, it is more a matter of an involuntary reaction to a particularly ridiculous statement...

Arneoker

Nov 8 2009, 06:32 PM

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Nov 8 2009, 08:45 AM)

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Nov 7 2009, 07:56 AM)

And all of the above does not mean one should get a pass in distorting history.

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Nov 7 2009, 06:44 PM)

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 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.

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

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 ...

Graham is not the main distorter here... I upbraid Graham quite often, but he has been correct most of the time on this thread. That is, IMHO...

Arneoker

Nov 8 2009, 06:37 PM

QUOTE(rla @ Nov 7 2009, 02:42 PM)

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...

It is kind of a matter of who should throw the first stone...

LBJ is the topic, and it is certainly fair to assess him quite harshly. But not if we change history in order to do it. And I think it ridiculous to contend that the President at the time had no choice but to push civil rights legislation vigorously. It would have been so easy to be lukewarm about it, or even throw up some roadblocks. After all there was quite a lot of opposition to civil rights.

But then alternative histories, like the one being spun here about an America where there was no racial discrimination, except in the South, can be amusing. I think the evidence quite clearly suggests that the only places where that was largely true were those where there was only one race...

rla

Nov 8 2009, 09:11 PM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Nov 8 2009, 07:37 PM)

QUOTE(rla @ Nov 7 2009, 02:42 PM)

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...

It is kind of a matter of who should throw the first stone...

LBJ is the topic, and it is certainly fair to assess him quite harshly. But not if we change history in order to do it. And I think it ridiculous to contend that the President at the time had no choice but to push civil rights legislation vigorously. It would have been so easy to be lukewarm about it, or even throw up some roadblocks. After all there was quite a lot of opposition to civil rights.

But then alternative histories, like the one being spun here about an America where there was no racial discrimination, except in the South, can be amusing. I think the evidence quite clearly suggests that the only places where that was largely true were those where there was only one race...

Everyone always has choices. If LBJ expected to assume a proactive role in leading the Democratic
Party after the death of JFK he had to assume the Ideology of the Kennedy Clan and the social gospel.
He already had a life time experience of play the Southern Baptist Deacon...

I have not suggested that recial discrimination was restricted to the South. It was more explicit in the South but not more hurtfull...

Livyjr

Nov 9 2009, 05:25 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Nov 8 2009, 06:31 PM)

QUOTE(Livyjr @ Nov 7 2009, 06:44 PM)

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

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

QUOTE(Livyjr)

LAUGH AWAY, Arneoker ....

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

And so ...

Sometimes it is not a matter of what is good for someone, it is more a matter of an involuntary reaction to a particularly ridiculous statement...

And you know what, Arneoker?

Because of veterans like me here in America, and rla, as well, you HAVE the right to mock Dwight David Eisenhower and his accomplishments in the field of civil rights that the donkey LBJ then added on to ....

And nobody is going to come club you down for it ...

Or haul you off to a GULAG somewhere ....

Or have you committed to a secure mental health facility in New York State based on a FRAUD committed by a political doctor .....

And so ...

Livyjr

Nov 9 2009, 05:31 AM

QUOTE(rla @ Nov 8 2009, 09:11 PM)

I have not suggested that recial discrimination was restricted to the South.

No, rla ....

That attack by Arneoker and his mockery was aimed at me ....

Arneoker is doing a lot of projecting in here, telling all of us that we are really racists who hate everyone not like us ....

Arneoker cannot conceive or percieve that that is not a true statement .....

And so, there is no real arguing or discussing with him on the point ....

I could show him our laws and our constitution which make it plain as day that up here, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, blacks are as equal as everyone else, and since that goes counter to Arneoker's predispositions on the subject, he dismisses that out of hand ....

And so ...

graham4anything

Dec 2 2009, 07:17 AM

QUOTE(Arneoker @ Nov 8 2009, 07:37 PM)

QUOTE(rla @ Nov 7 2009, 02:42 PM)

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...

It is kind of a matter of who should throw the first stone...

LBJ is the topic, and it is certainly fair to assess him quite harshly. But not if we change history in order to do it. And I think it ridiculous to contend that the President at the time had no choice but to push civil rights legislation vigorously. It would have been so easy to be lukewarm about it, or even throw up some roadblocks. After all there was quite a lot of opposition to civil rights.

But then alternative histories, like the one being spun here about an America where there was no racial discrimination, except in the South, can be amusing. I think the evidence quite clearly suggests that the only places where that was largely true were those where there was only one race...

thank God LBJ was there.
If say, Joe Biden was there, would he have extended himself? I don't know, and God Help Us, I hope we don't ever have to find out.

LBJ did what no one else did.
And again, I am not sure anyone else would have

I tip my hat to LBJ.