Than how about posting the
results of the vote shag - that would speak for itself wouldn't it?
No, it would not speak for itself.
First; the numbers, as you present them are deceptive and misleading. They downplay and ignore very relevant information like; the party majorities in both houses, the party majorities by region, etc. Statistics don't lie. Liars use statistics.
Second; it ignores the
reasons that the different members from different parties and/or different viewpoints may have opposed the bill. There were plenty of reasons a person might have opposed the bill that had nothing to do with race. The rationale for voting for or against the 1965 CRA is at the heart of determining any racism along ideological lines and your numbers give no indication of that whatsoever. To equate opposition to the 1965 CRA with racism (as you are implicitly doing) is to make a false generalization; to mislead.
Third; "Democrat" is not synonymous with "liberal" and "Republican" is not synonymous with "conservative". Your entire argument hinges on
ignoring that fact.
By your logic, you would HAVE to conclude that
liberals are inherently racist. As fossten pointed out...
The fact is that in both the House and the Senate, special tactics had to be utilized to get the bill around the committee chairs who were bottling up the bill, both Democrats. Then the bill had to get around a Democrat filibuster.
That Democrat filibuster? Democrat and former Exalted Cyclops of the KKK Senator Robert Byrd. Many Democrats/liberals were
recently singing the late Senator's praises;
including Bill Clinton and
Barak Obama.
Byrd has, throughout his legislative career
consistently supported liberal positions as well.
By your own logic, you would HAVE to conclude that
liberals are racists.
However, that would be just as absurd as claiming that conservatives are racist.
There very much was a split in the party along north/south lines shag - why would you try to say differently?
That is NOT what I said and you know it.
I was pointing out that the Democrat party was not divided along
conservative/liberal lines. Your argument
assumes the north/south dichotomy is synonymous with the liberal/conservative dichotomy. That is nothing but a subtle attempt to deceptively inject a false premise into the discussion that you cannot honestly and directly get agreement on. Where is your good faith in discussing these things?
All you have to offer is a misrepresentation of my argument, tortured logic, rhetorical sleight-of-hand and cherry picked circumstantial evidence. Unfortunately, that is all you
ever offer to support these "racist" claims by the left against their opponents.
Is attempting to falsely brand conservatives as "racist" all you and the left have anymore? While it has been a false narrative the left has been using for decades as a rhetorical bludgeon to cowardly short circuit any honest debate, it is rooted in lies, half truths and deceptions. As has been demonstrated in this thread.
That talking point has become a joke because of the tortured "logic" used to support that lie. If that is all you have, you have nothing.
And considering your desperation in promoting that narrative on this forum, you clearly have nothing else.
Stay classy!
