Civil Rights Icon John Lewis died tonight at 80 years old

#76
#76
BowlBrother85 said:
Wrong. Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress in 1964 and there was a Democratic Party President in LBJ, who signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Now, you can say that a higher percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the bill, but it still would have passed anyway... and it still needed to be signed - which it was, by a Democratic Party President.
Click to expand...
That’s as asinine as people defending Trump for signing massive spending bills because that’s the bill put on his desk what else could he do?
 
#78
#78
MG1968 said:
That’s as asinine as people defending Trump for signing massive spending bills because that’s the bill put on his desk what else could he do?
Click to expand...
It's asinine to say that Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when both chambers of the 88th Congress were controlled by Democrats... and no, LBJ didn't have to sign it, there wasn't a veto proof majority. Just as Trump doesn't have to sign appropriations bills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#83
#83
When I worked on the hill I worked w him and his staff on a project to memorialize a significant (but not that well known) site in the civil rights movement in the south that was in our district. He cared deeply about it. Even though it wasn’t in his district or even in his state he insisted on traveling to this obscure little town for the opening and giving the keynote speech. In that speech he called on people to look in the human in each other and to also celebrate our unique history and culture. That was a long time ago and not something you hear much these days, but I think we should still strive to do that. His life was certainly worth remembering; from very humble beginnings to an important civil rights leader and then US Representative. That’s a uniquely American story and one worth celebrating.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, Tin Man, NashVol11 and 10 others
#85
#85
golfballs said:
When I worked on the hill I worked w him and his staff on a project to memorialize a significant (but not that well known) site in the civil rights movement in the south that was in our district. He cared deeply about it. Even though it wasn’t in his district or even in his state he insisted on traveling to this obscure little town for the opening and giving the keynote speech. In that speech he called on people to look in the human in each other and to also celebrate our unique history and culture. That was a long time ago and not something you hear much these days, but I think we should still strive to do that. His life was certainly worth remembering; from very humble beginnings to an important civil rights leader and then US Representative. That’s a uniquely American story and one worth celebrating.
Click to expand...
We may never agree again, so I'm jumping on this opportunity to say great post.
 
#87
#87
USMC-TNVOL said:
Literally what republicans say all the time (like this thread) without acknowledging the parties switched side after the southern Democrats got pissed black people were getting rights signed into law.

View attachment 294135
Click to expand...
LOL. That ranks up there with other myths like the easter bunny, or Santa. Guess that explains why half the south went blue and voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Because they switched sides right?! LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, 0nelilreb, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#88
#88
BowlBrother85 said:
Wrong. Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress in 1964 (the 88th Congress) and there was a Democratic Party President in LBJ, who signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Now, you can say that a higher percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the bill, but it still would have passed anyway... and it still needed to be signed - which it was, by a Democratic Party President.
Click to expand...

It passed with bipartisan support. I can say a higher percentage of Republicans voted in favor of it because that is a fact. It would not "have passed anyway". Neither side gets sole credit.

Like it or not, the Democrat Party has a racist past. You seem offended every time it is mentioned but it is a historical fact. No argument you make will change that, and no amount of denial can change what was. That does not mean the party holds the same beliefs today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, 0nelilreb, AirVol and 2 others
#89
#89
Weezer said:
It passed with bipartisan support. I can say a higher percentage of Republicans voted in favor of it because that is a fact. It would not "have passed anyway". Neither side gets sole credit.

Like it or not, the Democrat Party has a racist past. You seem offended every time it is mentioned but it is a historical fact. No argument you make will change that, and no amount of denial can change what was. That does not mean the party holds the same beliefs today.
Click to expand...
They can't shake their past so they try to say that the sides flipped..yet the racist terrorism and murder still lies in the past with their party. To be honest in todays day of cancel culture I still can't believe that they haven't brought up changing their name. It seems they want to attack everything racist except themselves..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#90
#90
BowlBrother85 said:
Both parties did that. There wasn't a good choice for him when he entered politics. He could join the party of Robert Byrd or he could join the party of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. He joined the party which had passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

Strom was a Democrat when the Civil Rights Act came to the Senate floor. He switched parties later that year. Jesse Helms was also a Democrat at the time. Sorry, just find it ironic that you mention those three specifically when all three were Democrats at the time of the Civil Rights Act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol
#91
#91
USMC-TNVOL said:
Literally what republicans say all the time (like this thread) without acknowledging the parties switched side after the southern Democrats got pissed black people were getting rights signed into law.

View attachment 294135
Click to expand...
Some switched sides, not all. It doesn't erase history. And saying Republicans opposed those things is not inaccurate. Not sure why people feel the need to try and change history? What was does not necessarily reflect on what is now. So much is made about accepting the horrible things that happened in this country's past, yet Democrats cannot even accept the history of their party. No amount of denial changes historical fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens
#92
#92
golfballs said:
When I worked on the hill I worked w him and his staff on a project to memorialize a significant (but not that well known) site in the civil rights movement in the south that was in our district. He cared deeply about it. Even though it wasn’t in his district or even in his state he insisted on traveling to this obscure little town for the opening and giving the keynote speech. In that speech he called on people to look in the human in each other and to also celebrate our unique history and culture. That was a long time ago and not something you hear much these days, but I think we should still strive to do that. His life was certainly worth remembering; from very humble beginnings to an important civil rights leader and then US Representative. That’s a uniquely American story and one worth celebrating.
Click to expand...
Thank you for a classy post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#93
#93
To those insistent on tearing the man down, John Lewis did great things in his life. Don't let differing politics color that fact. Nothing is gained by tearing down a dead man. Show more class than that and acknowledge he went through things most of us could never even begin to imagine. That should be respected. Not asking anyone to agree with his politics. That's a separate issue. Just respect what he faced and endured in the fight for civil rights. No man (or woman) should have had to suffer that to be seen as a human being deserving of equal treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, Tin Man, MG1968 and 3 others
#95
#95
Rasputin_Vol said:
I think it stinks. Just another example of us trying to erase and ultimately dilute history. For generations to come, visitors actually going on the Pettus Bridge will not have the same emotional affect and authenticity as going over the John Lewis Bridge. If the intent of most of these liberals is to stir up emotional reactions, then they need to leave the bridge as it was 55-60 years ago.

Just my opinion...
Click to expand...
I know. It will just be so painful to drive across a bridge named for a civil rights hero instead of a klansman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#96
#96
tvolsfan said:
I know. It will just be so painful to drive across a bridge named for a civil rights hero instead of a klansman.
Click to expand...
The humor of naming something after a civil rights person so White people can drive over it forever..
 
#98
#98
Because you can't let the leg-humpers get the wrong idea about who you stand with.

 
#99
#99
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, volfanjustin and Carl Pickens
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top