Posted on 07/07/2019 11:19:53 AM PDT by TigerClaws
I think people are losing Biden’s real error here. First, he brought up working with segregationists. It reminds everyone he’s very old for one and it was a self-inflicted wound. Was no point in bringing it up. The current leftists don’t want to work with ANYONE. They only want to destroy Trump and his voters.
Second, Biden was against “forced bussing.” This was precisely the Dixiecrat position — federal government has no business in telling us how to run our schools and if segregation happens so be it.
Biden has not yet said it was correct for the feds to force bussing.
That’s the key issue so there’s further damage to be done to himself. If he says he now sees his mistake, the majority of Americans don’t like kids riding in a school bus far away from their home. If he says he didn’t make a mistake, he’s back to supporting the segregationists.
Biden would be a gift nominee. He’s old and gaffe-prone. No way he has the energy or the mind to keep up with Trump. He looks tired and old. He’s had a lot of years of hard drinking. His son and Joe have major Chinese baggage from the payola did they worked out when Joe was VP.
It’s almost as if he’s been put up to drop out later. Fitting some MSM narrative where the old white men are being replaced by ... whatever victim group they’ve picked as their next contender.
Wallace was some kinda dude. William F. Buckley was attributed with witnessing a famous Wallace quote, "There ain't nobody what loves the niggras like me and Lurleen [his wife]."
[ Now as Schiff and Nadler would say: Back to our duty to indict and imprison Donald J Trump. ]
Well, of course. President Trump is anti-New World Order, pro-American, pro-American jobs and pro-American sovereignty.
The New World Order ain’t got no tolerance for THAT kind of dissent.
[Please let him be the rat nominee.]
I hope so too. Stay in there Joe!!
Set up for BigMike...
“So when the ‘ Rats “call for civility” what do they really mean?”
They mean you get to sit down and shut up while they take your money, your rights, and your freedom.
Anything else is uncivil.
L
“Folks who call themselves conservative applauding the very things which helped destroy them ignorant of what wise men then thought and drinking the Dinesh Beck Levin Hannity Shapiro cool aid”
Well. They are conserving, sorta.... they just happen to be conserving the legacy of Lyndon Johnson and the Republican quislings who carried his water.
You might as well laugh at it at this point. You can’t really blame the average person too young to remember, but you can blame that list of talking heads you just listed whose sole contribution has been to convince everyone that conservatives were marching down the street with MLK, Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown. Well maybe I’m exaggerating a bit... but not much....Power To The People! Power To The People Right On! (strikes pose, raises clenched fist)
H. Rap Brown & Stokely Carmichael in Oakland (1968) | KQED Archives
"How many white folks you kill today?"
Lester Maddox and Jim Brown Get Into Heated Debate on Segregation | The Dick Cavett Show
Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Consider the ideological implications of the decreed use of power against individual property owners, and it is abundantly apparent just how extreme the departure from the social values of the founders--who understood a society based upon personal responsibility & individual rights.
“One need not even get into racial questions, either per se or incidentally to recognize that the “Civil Rights” movement was a fundamental assault on very basic American principles.”
That’s what Goldwater and Reagan believed and it’s why they both opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
And Buckley and Kirk as well. Go back and read National Review from that time and you’ll see that all conservatives opposed the bill because of the thought policing and suspension of free association inherent in it.
But today’s Pop Conservatism celebrates that loss of individual liberty in the service of feel good virtue signalling. And at the same time they can’t figure out where the ability of government to sue a cake maker came from. I’m listening to Hannity yammer on just now celebrating how his Republican heroes passed that 1964 bill. Dumb as a rock.
It is truly sad, because those so conditioned believe they have embraced tolerance, whereas the pseudo intellectual fabric is very, very far from anything conducive to actual tolerance or "good will" among peoples. As I have tried to demonstrate in many efforts, it is the exact opposite. The premises, fairly put in context, are insulting to all of us, regardless of race, creed or color."
And yes, nobody wants to claim any bad consequences as a result of that civil rights act, but it has in fact done great damage to freedom of association.
It has also done tremendous damage to the social cohesion of American minorities, turning many into “victims” focused on demanding rather than achieving. Think about changes in recent decades—self defeating changes.
“Hannity never struck me as a good advocate for our side.”
He’s not. Although he is at least on our side most of the time, when he’s not cheerleading the greatest hits of 1960s liberalism and calling it “conservatism”.
Neither Hannity nor Rush accurately represent the 1960s Civil Rights movement. They are so eager to claim it that they rebrand it as being part of the conservative movement.
Those old enough to remember know better. Plus all that is needed for anyone too young is to go read contemporaneous political writing. Or watch speeches by Goldwater. Or Reagan. Or Buckley.
Hannity, Rush, Beck and Company need to give 1960s liberals the credit that they are due. Creating a massive and intrusive government bureaucracy that can run roughshod over every facet of American life that they deem discriminatory is their baby. They earned it, let them keep it.
I have become a cynic. Nowadays I don't think Democrats care about illegal aliens, I think they care about a constituency block. I think they cared about a constituency block in the 1960s, and they cared about a constituency block in the 1860s.
It's never about morals, or right and wrong. It's always about a political path to more power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.