Not an American.....not a U.S. Soldier......he's just a "deserter", even though there are conflicting accounts from fellow soldiers, and even though none of us were there to know what caused him to disappear. Do you really want to label him that without knowing what happened? No reason to criticize the soldier just to make Obama look bad.

I bet alloak has a yellow ribbon magnet on his truck. Yet look at how he supports the troops. He is fine with men and women dying and bleeding for him, but if he can tar one soldier to make Obama look bad then out comes the bucket and brush. Who cares that there is conflicting testimony and that there hasn't been a trial. Who cares that this guy put himself in harms way for Alloak's and all our freedoms. Just judge him to make the President look bad.

How patriotic.

Not an American.....not a U.S. Soldier......he's just a "deserter", even though there are conflicting accounts from fellow soldiers, and even though none of us were there to know what caused him to disappear. Do you really want to label him that without knowing what happened? No reason to criticize the soldier just to make Obama look bad.

I bet alloak has a yellow ribbon magnet on his truck. Yet look at how he supports the troops. He is fine with men and women dying and bleeding for him, but if he can tar one soldier to make Obama look bad then out comes the bucket and brush. Who cares that there is conflicting testimony and that there hasn't been a trial. Who cares that this guy put himself in harms way for Alloak's and all our freedoms. Just judge him to make the President look bad.

How patriotic.

_______________________________________________________________

The U.S. Army has investigated the soldier and determined him to be a deserter.
The final report was finished last August.
The White House demanded that the general send the report to the obama administration for "review".
obama and his administration are holding the report for as long as they can because it reflects very badly on obama.
This was also one of the reasons obama's third SEC-DEF Hagel quit.

This si a common political tactic by obama and his handlers.
Claim a "review" or "on-going investigation" to kick the matter far down the road.

[Edited on 3/12/2015 by Muleman1994]

So maybe Obama should give arms to Iran? Is that what you are saying?

We basically already have. They are running and controlling the Iraqi army that we armed and trained for the better part of ten years. They armed up ISIS first when they dropped their weapons and ran at first sight. Now the Iranians will take whatever they want.

Obama has publically stated the “he” is ready to walk away from the negotiations at any time.
The Iranians, like Putin, play obama like the weak leader he is.

Based on his, hillary and kerry’s history of foreign policy negotiations, there will be no agreement, obama will further relax sanctions and Iran will continue to develop a nuclear weapon.

This is one time where it really is "him" and not the country. The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs on how best to allow them to develop nuclear weapons. Obama is negotiating for himself. He won't submit the agreement to congressional scrutiny because he knows it will never be approved.

The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs? Where did you come up with that? Is this another of your internal polls where you think something and therefore the entire country agrees with you?

________________________________________________________________________

Every major poll shows the American People do not want any negotiation with Iran that allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

Obama and Kerry are offering a 10 year "secession" of weapons grade uranium by Iran which would allow Iran to go right back to building a bomb in 10 years.
Everyone also knows that during the 10 year period Iran will now allow inspection of its secret facilities. Iran will simply throw out the inspectors as they have done every time before.

The IAEA has also stated that negotiating with Iran is a fruitless effort.

But hey, the liberals here will never believe the People and the professionals.

This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE wants a nuclear Iran except Iran. I am now convinced you are actually a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. You're doing a really good job.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies. So what he wants is irrelevant. My guess is he already believes it can't be prevented and is just trying to kick the can down the road.

We are all dumber for reading this post.

You are already maximally dumb. The post has nothing to do with it.

Hello Mr. Pot.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies.

NO ONE'S policies can prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon unless the policy is that the centrifuges are to be destroyed and all Iranian nuclear scientists are to be killed.

Is that what you are advocating? What's your solution?

There is no solution except to ultimately undermine the regime as much as possible through isolation and sanctions such that the people ultimately seek the removal of said government or the government genuinely changes. That had been the policy of the United States for 30 years until now.

Until now? This ranting is beneath you. You aren't even keeping up with the details that you normally do.

YESTERDAY, Obama extended the sanctions for another year...

US extends Iran sanctions while noting improved behavior
Tehran’s actions pose ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ to American security, says Obama

WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama noted improved Iranian behavior while nuclear talks are underway, but said a yearlong extension of sanctions is still merited.

On Wednesday, Obama extended the status of national emergency for Iran, which perpetuates existing sanctions on the regime for a year.

Such extensions have been routine since 1995, when President Bill Clinton first imposed nuclear-related sanctions. But Obama spoke of progress made in the talks between Iran and the major powers.

“This marks the first time in a decade that Iran has agreed to take, and has taken, specific actions that stop the advance and roll back key elements of its nuclear program,” he said, adding that the United States was participating in the temporary relief of some sanctions as part of the agreement governing the talks.

“Nevertheless, certain actions and policies of the Government of Iran are contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iran and to maintain in force comprehensive sanctions.”

The deadline for an outline of an agreement is March 24 and for a final agreement July 1. Obama could suspend some sanctions with an agreement in place, but would need congressional approval to permanently repeal sanctions.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-extends-iran-sanctions-while-noting-improved-behavior/

"Until now." Stop making things up. You're better than that.

He is? I dunno, seems like par for the course to me.

This is getting better by the day:

Obama, knowing full well Congress will never ratify a agreement with Iran that includes more relaxing of sanctions and a sunset clause has found a new way to bypass Congress (and the law).

Tonight obama administration senior officials are letting it be known that once he has a deal in hand, obama plans to take it to The U.N. for ratification.

Obama has publically stated the “he” is ready to walk away from the negotiations at any time.
The Iranians, like Putin, play obama like the weak leader he is.

Based on his, hillary and kerry’s history of foreign policy negotiations, there will be no agreement, obama will further relax sanctions and Iran will continue to develop a nuclear weapon.

This is one time where it really is "him" and not the country. The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs on how best to allow them to develop nuclear weapons. Obama is negotiating for himself. He won't submit the agreement to congressional scrutiny because he knows it will never be approved.

The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs? Where did you come up with that? Is this another of your internal polls where you think something and therefore the entire country agrees with you?

________________________________________________________________________

Every major poll shows the American People do not want any negotiation with Iran that allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

Obama and Kerry are offering a 10 year "secession" of weapons grade uranium by Iran which would allow Iran to go right back to building a bomb in 10 years.
Everyone also knows that during the 10 year period Iran will now allow inspection of its secret facilities. Iran will simply throw out the inspectors as they have done every time before.

The IAEA has also stated that negotiating with Iran is a fruitless effort.

But hey, the liberals here will never believe the People and the professionals.

This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE wants a nuclear Iran except Iran. I am now convinced you are actually a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. You're doing a really good job.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies. So what he wants is irrelevant. My guess is he already believes it can't be prevented and is just trying to kick the can down the road.

We are all dumber for reading this post.

You are already maximally dumb. The post has nothing to do with it.

Hello Mr. Pot.

How you doing Sgt. Kettle.

Obama has publically stated the “he” is ready to walk away from the negotiations at any time.
The Iranians, like Putin, play obama like the weak leader he is.

Based on his, hillary and kerry’s history of foreign policy negotiations, there will be no agreement, obama will further relax sanctions and Iran will continue to develop a nuclear weapon.

This is one time where it really is "him" and not the country. The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs on how best to allow them to develop nuclear weapons. Obama is negotiating for himself. He won't submit the agreement to congressional scrutiny because he knows it will never be approved.

The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs? Where did you come up with that? Is this another of your internal polls where you think something and therefore the entire country agrees with you?

________________________________________________________________________

Every major poll shows the American People do not want any negotiation with Iran that allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

Obama and Kerry are offering a 10 year "secession" of weapons grade uranium by Iran which would allow Iran to go right back to building a bomb in 10 years.
Everyone also knows that during the 10 year period Iran will now allow inspection of its secret facilities. Iran will simply throw out the inspectors as they have done every time before.

The IAEA has also stated that negotiating with Iran is a fruitless effort.

But hey, the liberals here will never believe the People and the professionals.

This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE wants a nuclear Iran except Iran. I am now convinced you are actually a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. You're doing a really good job.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies. So what he wants is irrelevant. My guess is he already believes it can't be prevented and is just trying to kick the can down the road.

We are all dumber for reading this post.

You are already maximally dumb. The post has nothing to do with it.

Hello Mr. Pot.

How you doing Sgt. Kettle.

________________________________________________________

So I guess from the liberal’s point of view when Iran blows Israel, our best and most important ally in the middle east, off the face or earth killing millions it is all The GOPs fault ?

So now that Kerry is stating that an accord with Iran seems improbable is anyone reconsidering the fact that Bibi has some "insider" knowledge?

Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?

I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.

If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.

Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?

I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.

If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.

I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East

Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?

I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.

If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.

I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East

______________________________________________________________________

The Islamic Extremist Terrorists have already attacked the U.S. and have openly sworn to do so again.

I would like to see an independent poll of people in NYC/NJ who lived through 9/11 what they think about what to do about the IET’s who threaten to attack is again.

Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?

I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.

If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.

I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East

______________________________________________________________________

The Islamic Extremist Terrorists have already attacked the U.S. and have openly sworn to do so again.

I would like to see an independent poll of people in NYC/NJ who lived through 9/11 what they think about what to do about the IET’s who threaten to attack is again.

What scares me is how many people feel that the hostility comes from the US support of Israel and is not a direct attack on the US

Obama has publically stated the “he” is ready to walk away from the negotiations at any time.
The Iranians, like Putin, play obama like the weak leader he is.

Based on his, hillary and kerry’s history of foreign policy negotiations, there will be no agreement, obama will further relax sanctions and Iran will continue to develop a nuclear weapon.

This is one time where it really is "him" and not the country. The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs on how best to allow them to develop nuclear weapons. Obama is negotiating for himself. He won't submit the agreement to congressional scrutiny because he knows it will never be approved.

The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs? Where did you come up with that? Is this another of your internal polls where you think something and therefore the entire country agrees with you?

________________________________________________________________________

Every major poll shows the American People do not want any negotiation with Iran that allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

Obama and Kerry are offering a 10 year "secession" of weapons grade uranium by Iran which would allow Iran to go right back to building a bomb in 10 years.
Everyone also knows that during the 10 year period Iran will now allow inspection of its secret facilities. Iran will simply throw out the inspectors as they have done every time before.

The IAEA has also stated that negotiating with Iran is a fruitless effort.

But hey, the liberals here will never believe the People and the professionals.

This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE wants a nuclear Iran except Iran. I am now convinced you are actually a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. You're doing a really good job.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies. So what he wants is irrelevant. My guess is he already believes it can't be prevented and is just trying to kick the can down the road.

We are all dumber for reading this post.

You are already maximally dumb. The post has nothing to do with it.

Hello Mr. Pot.

How you doing Sgt. Kettle.

________________________________________________________

So I guess from the liberal’s point of view when Iran blows Israel, our best and most important ally in the middle east, off the face or earth killing millions it is all The GOPs fault ?

I've never understood or agree with this notion that once Iran acquires a nuclear weapon that they'll immediately launch it against a nation with several times more the power to destroy them then they do it. Or that they'll pass along their newly acquired super weapon to a proxy group to detonate in Israel. After all nuclear fall out is a real bitch to contain and the concept know as MADD has proven rather effective in the relative short history of nuclear weaponry.

Rather, I've always been of the opinion that Iran is seeking nuclear weaponry merely as a deterrent to their enemies in the region. Such as, well, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc....If I had a nuclear armed Israel on one side, unstable Pakistan on the other, and my sworn enemy with what seems to have the full support of the most powerful nation on earth (the United States) backing it in Saudi Arabia, I'd sure as hell be seeking a nuclear weapon too.

Wouldn't you if you were a bunch of crazed religious fanatics who'll go to any length to maintain power is nation such as Iran? Just tossing it out there boys and girls.....

[Edited on 3/15/2015 by Chain]

Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?

I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.

If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.

I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East

It's a typical tactic to accuse anyone who rejects apeasement of a savage enemy to be a warmonger. Churchill was so accused. Reagan of course was so accused. Now Netanyahu is so accused.

Obama has publically stated the “he” is ready to walk away from the negotiations at any time.
The Iranians, like Putin, play obama like the weak leader he is.

Based on his, hillary and kerry’s history of foreign policy negotiations, there will be no agreement, obama will further relax sanctions and Iran will continue to develop a nuclear weapon.

This is one time where it really is "him" and not the country. The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs on how best to allow them to develop nuclear weapons. Obama is negotiating for himself. He won't submit the agreement to congressional scrutiny because he knows it will never be approved.

The country opposes negotiating with the Mullahs? Where did you come up with that? Is this another of your internal polls where you think something and therefore the entire country agrees with you?

________________________________________________________________________

Every major poll shows the American People do not want any negotiation with Iran that allows Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

Obama and Kerry are offering a 10 year "secession" of weapons grade uranium by Iran which would allow Iran to go right back to building a bomb in 10 years.
Everyone also knows that during the 10 year period Iran will now allow inspection of its secret facilities. Iran will simply throw out the inspectors as they have done every time before.

The IAEA has also stated that negotiating with Iran is a fruitless effort.

But hey, the liberals here will never believe the People and the professionals.

This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE wants a nuclear Iran except Iran. I am now convinced you are actually a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. You're doing a really good job.

Obama may not want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But it is the inevitable result of his policies. So what he wants is irrelevant. My guess is he already believes it can't be prevented and is just trying to kick the can down the road.

We are all dumber for reading this post.

You are already maximally dumb. The post has nothing to do with it.

Hello Mr. Pot.

How you doing Sgt. Kettle.

________________________________________________________

So I guess from the liberal’s point of view when Iran blows Israel, our best and most important ally in the middle east, off the face or earth killing millions it is all The GOPs fault ?

I've never understood or agree with this notion that once Iran acquires a nuclear weapon that they'll immediately launch it against a nation with several times more the power to destroy them then they do it. Or that they'll pass along their newly acquired super weapon to a proxy group to detonate in Israel. After all nuclear fall out is a real bitch to contain and the concept know as MADD has proven rather effective in the relative short history of nuclear weaponry.

Rather, I've always been of the opinion that Iran is seeking nuclear weaponry merely as a deterrent to their enemies in the region. Such as, well, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc....If I had a nuclear armed Israel on one side, unstable Pakistan on the other, and my sworn enemy with what seems to have the full support of the most powerful nation on earth (the United States) backing it in Saudi Arabia, I'd sure as hell be seeking a nuclear weapon too.

Wouldn't you if you were a bunch of crazed religious fanatics who'll go to any length to maintain power is nation such as Iran? Just tossing it out there boys and girls.....

[Edited on 3/15/2015 by Chain]

What they are actually looking for is a deterrent to the civilized nations of the region and the world stopping their march towards Middle East dominance and their support for international terrorism. It would radically upset any semblance of a balance of power and would lead to a massive arms race in the region. It's the surest way to figure that insane terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weapons.

Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?

I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.

If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.

I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East

It's a typical tactic to accuse anyone who rejects apeasement of a savage enemy to be a warmonger. Churchill was so accused. Reagan of course was so accused. Now Netanyahu is so accused.

What exactly is this appeasement you speak of? Just by talking to them? That's comical.

Sunni or Shiite
Isaac or Ishmael

Warmonger or Pacifist
Capitalist or Socialist

Democrat or Republican or Independent
Labour or Conservative or Nationalist

White or Brown or Black or Yellow or other
Female or Male or other

Liquor or Beer or Wine
Round or Square Table

Jazz or The Blues

Etc… etc… etc…

Appeasement? Wow. Diplomacy and negotiations are a cornerstone of peaceful civilization. I think a treaty is far better than a war.

I also don't think Israel will benefit in the eyes of the world from a militant, hard line stance. Anti-semitism is permeating Europe. Check out this article from the Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

I find this paragraph from the article interesting:

"Hitler destroyed most everything. But the story Europeans tell themselves—or told themselves, until the proof became too obvious to ignore—is that Judenhass, the hatred of Jews, ended when Berlin fell 70 years ago."

It sort of reminds me of the people who maintain that racism in America is dead.That the protections given by the Civil Rights Acts are no longer needed.

If there is no diplomatic solution with Iran I can see military action leading to a World War. There are large groups of people in Europe who will blame European Jews for Netanyahu's hard line.

Appeasement? Wow. Diplomacy and negotiations are a cornerstone of peaceful civilization. I think a treaty is far better than a war.

I also don't think Israel will benefit in the eyes of the world from a militant, hard line stance. Anti-semitism is permeating Europe. Check out this article from the Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/

I find this paragraph from the article interesting:

"Hitler destroyed most everything. But the story Europeans tell themselves—or told themselves, until the proof became too obvious to ignore—is that Judenhass, the hatred of Jews, ended when Berlin fell 70 years ago."

It sort of reminds me of the people who maintain that racism in America is dead.That the protections given by the Civil Rights Acts are no longer needed.

If there is no diplomatic solution with Iran I can see military action leading to a World War. There are large groups of people in Europe who will blame European Jews for Netanyahu's hard line.

_______________________________________________________________

"It sort of reminds me of the people who maintain that racism in America is dead.That the protections given by the Civil Rights Acts are no longer needed."

Who exactly is putting forth that notion?

It certainly is not The GOP.
It was the Republicans that authored and got passed into law The Civil Rights Act and who to this day fight fir EQUAL Rights for all citizens.

It was the Republicans that authored and got passed into law The Civil Rights Act and who to this day fight fir EQUAL Rights for all citizens.

http://wishtv.com/2015/03/16/rallies-draw-hundreds-for-religious-objections-bill-hearing/

House panel passes religious freedom bill
By TOM DAVIES, Associated Press
Published: March 16, 2015, 10:36 am | Updated: March 16, 2015, 1:49 pm

NDIANAPOLIS (AP) — An Indiana legislative committee has endorsed a contentious proposal that could allow people with strong religious beliefs to not provide services for same-sex weddings.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 9-4 Monday to approve the bill after a four-hour hearing inside the House chamber filled with red-wearing opponents and green-wearing supporters of the bill. Each side had more than 100 people at Statehouse rallies Monday morning.

Supporters say the proposal is aimed at protecting religious freedom and preventing the government from compelling people to be involved in activities such as same-sex weddings that they consider objectionable. Opponents maintain it could give legal cover for discrimination against gays and possibly override civil rights ordinances in some cities.

The bill cleared the Indiana Senate last month and now goes to the full House.

"It sort of reminds me of the people who maintain that racism in America is dead.That the protections given by the Civil Rights Acts are no longer needed."

Who exactly is putting forth that notion?

It certainly is not The GOP.
It was the Republicans that authored and got passed into law The Civil Rights Act and who to this day fight fir EQUAL Rights for all citizens.

I don't know who you are fighting' fir, but the Supreme Court weakened the Voting Rights Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-stops-use-of-key-part-of-voting-rights-act/2013/06/25/26888528-dda5-11e2-b197-f248b21f94c4_story.html

It was the Republicans that authored and got passed into law The Civil Rights Act and who to this day fight fir EQUAL Rights for all citizens.

http://wishtv.com/2015/03/16/rallies-draw-hundreds-for-religious-objections-bill-hearing/

House panel passes religious freedom bill
By TOM DAVIES, Associated Press
Published: March 16, 2015, 10:36 am | Updated: March 16, 2015, 1:49 pm

NDIANAPOLIS (AP) — An Indiana legislative committee has endorsed a contentious proposal that could allow people with strong religious beliefs to not provide services for same-sex weddings.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 9-4 Monday to approve the bill after a four-hour hearing inside the House chamber filled with red-wearing opponents and green-wearing supporters of the bill. Each side had more than 100 people at Statehouse rallies Monday morning.

Supporters say the proposal is aimed at protecting religious freedom and preventing the government from compelling people to be involved in activities such as same-sex weddings that they consider objectionable. Opponents maintain it could give legal cover for discrimination against gays and possibly override civil rights ordinances in some cities.

The bill cleared the Indiana Senate last month and now goes to the full House.

________________________________________________________________________

Exactly right.

A couple, for example, who run a bakery, should not be forced by government to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding if it violates their religious beliefs.

A privately owned company cannot be forced by government to offer abortion services insurance when it violates their faith.

It is not discrimination when you abide by your faith.

One of the founding and guiding principles of The United States of American is freedom of religion.
A special interest groups demands cannot cause someone to lose their Constitutional Rights.

Exactly right.

A couple, for example, who run a bakery, should not be forced by government to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding if it violates their religious beliefs.

A privately owned company cannot be forced by government to offer abortion services insurance when it violates their faith.

It is not discrimination when you abide by your faith.

One of the founding and guiding principles of The United States of American is freedom of religion.
A special interest groups demands cannot cause someone to lose their Constitutional Rights.

it almost sounds like you would support Sharia Law also.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created from a call for such legislation by President Kennedy in 1963. The process of authorship and passage was a truly bi-partisan endeavor, with key people including but not limited to: Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), President Johnson, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and many others.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).

To lay claim in a current context that the landmark civil rights legislation is the exclusive "property of credit" of either political party is just plain silly, and the role that the Democrat "Southern Bloc" played in the matter doesn't change that no matter how many snarky "conservatives" wish it so.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created from a call for such legislation by President Kennedy in 1963. The process of authorship and passage was a truly bi-partisan endeavor, with key people including but not limited to: Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), President Johnson, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and many others.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).

To lay claim in a current context that the landmark civil rights legislation is the exclusive "property of credit" of either political party is just plain silly, and the role that the Democrat "Southern Bloc" played in the matter doesn't change that no matter how many snarky "conservatives" wish it so.

______________________________________________________________________

Not even close to accurate.

The Civil Rights Act was first proposed by Dwight Eisenhower and supported by Senate Republicans and the democrats railed against it. Remember that it was the democrats that ran The South during the slavery era.
Mansfield (D-MT) and Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) publically supported the Act but on The Senate floor they constantly supported the filibuster against it.

Kennedy jumped on the bandwagon as it was fast becoming a populist issue.
During the course of crafting the legislation the democrats repeatedly filibustered against The Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
No, Cellar co-sponsored the Act after it was proposed by The Republicans.

It had nothing to do with “snarky conservatives".
It was the democrats that worked against both the Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created from a call for such legislation by President Kennedy in 1963. The process of authorship and passage was a truly bi-partisan endeavor, with key people including but not limited to: Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), President Johnson, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and many others.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).

To lay claim in a current context that the landmark civil rights legislation is the exclusive "property of credit" of either political party is just plain silly, and the role that the Democrat "Southern Bloc" played in the matter doesn't change that no matter how many snarky "conservatives" wish it so.

______________________________________________________________________

Not even close to accurate.

The Civil Rights Act was first proposed by Dwight Eisenhower and supported by Senate Republicans and the democrats railed against it. Remember that it was the democrats that ran The South during the slavery era.
Mansfield (D-MT) and Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) publically supported the Act but on The Senate floor they constantly supported the filibuster against it.

Kennedy jumped on the bandwagon as it was fast becoming a populist issue.
During the course of crafting the legislation the democrats repeatedly filibustered against The Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
No, Cellar co-sponsored the Act after it was proposed by The Republicans.

It had nothing to do with “snarky conservatives".
It was the democrats that worked against both the Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act.

You are mixing up several laws/acts debated/passed between 1957 and 1968, so you are wrong as well.

In any case, trying to paint the civil rights legislation of the period as a simple D vs. R issue is pure folly...not saying there wasn't any partisanship then, but it was a different era in many, many ways and you can't simply project the current political landscape onto what was happening then. And just FYI, the "slavery era" you mentioned had ended nearly a hundred years earlier.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created from a call for such legislation by President Kennedy in 1963. The process of authorship and passage was a truly bi-partisan endeavor, with key people including but not limited to: Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), President Johnson, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and many others.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).

To lay claim in a current context that the landmark civil rights legislation is the exclusive "property of credit" of either political party is just plain silly, and the role that the Democrat "Southern Bloc" played in the matter doesn't change that no matter how many snarky "conservatives" wish it so.

______________________________________________________________________

Not even close to accurate.

The Civil Rights Act was first proposed by Dwight Eisenhower and supported by Senate Republicans and the democrats railed against it. Remember that it was the democrats that ran The South during the slavery era.
Mansfield (D-MT) and Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) publically supported the Act but on The Senate floor they constantly supported the filibuster against it.

Kennedy jumped on the bandwagon as it was fast becoming a populist issue.
During the course of crafting the legislation the democrats repeatedly filibustered against The Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
No, Cellar co-sponsored the Act after it was proposed by The Republicans.

It had nothing to do with “snarky conservatives".
It was the democrats that worked against both the Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act.

You are mixing up several laws/acts debated/passed between 1957 and 1968, so you are wrong as well.

In any case, trying to paint the civil rights legislation of the period as a simple D vs. R issue is pure folly...not saying there wasn't any partisanship then, but it was a different era in many, many ways and you can't simply project the current political landscape onto what was happening then. And just FYI, the "slavery era" you mentioned had ended nearly a hundred years earlier.

_____________________________________________________

I didn't say "there wasn't any partisanship then"

By party, it was The Republicans that got the Civil Rights Act done while the democrats fought against it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created from a call for such legislation by President Kennedy in 1963. The process of authorship and passage was a truly bi-partisan endeavor, with key people including but not limited to: Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), President Johnson, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and many others.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).

To lay claim in a current context that the landmark civil rights legislation is the exclusive "property of credit" of either political party is just plain silly, and the role that the Democrat "Southern Bloc" played in the matter doesn't change that no matter how many snarky "conservatives" wish it so.

______________________________________________________________________

Not even close to accurate.

The Civil Rights Act was first proposed by Dwight Eisenhower and supported by Senate Republicans and the democrats railed against it. Remember that it was the democrats that ran The South during the slavery era.
Mansfield (D-MT) and Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) publically supported the Act but on The Senate floor they constantly supported the filibuster against it.

Kennedy jumped on the bandwagon as it was fast becoming a populist issue.
During the course of crafting the legislation the democrats repeatedly filibustered against The Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
No, Cellar co-sponsored the Act after it was proposed by The Republicans.

It had nothing to do with “snarky conservatives".
It was the democrats that worked against both the Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act.

You are mixing up several laws/acts debated/passed between 1957 and 1968, so you are wrong as well.

In any case, trying to paint the civil rights legislation of the period as a simple D vs. R issue is pure folly...not saying there wasn't any partisanship then, but it was a different era in many, many ways and you can't simply project the current political landscape onto what was happening then. And just FYI, the "slavery era" you mentioned had ended nearly a hundred years earlier.

_____________________________________________________

I didn't say "there wasn't any partisanship then"

By party, it was The Republicans that got the Civil Rights Act done while the democrats fought against it.

I didn't say you did, and I specifically went out of my way to not say that as well. The five words you put in quotes completely take my words out of context in a way that changes their meaning. What I did say is that your partisan generalizations don't reflect the complete picture.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created from a call for such legislation by President Kennedy in 1963. The process of authorship and passage was a truly bi-partisan endeavor, with key people including but not limited to: Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), President Johnson, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and many others.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).

To lay claim in a current context that the landmark civil rights legislation is the exclusive "property of credit" of either political party is just plain silly, and the role that the Democrat "Southern Bloc" played in the matter doesn't change that no matter how many snarky "conservatives" wish it so.

______________________________________________________________________

Not even close to accurate.

The Civil Rights Act was first proposed by Dwight Eisenhower and supported by Senate Republicans and the democrats railed against it. Remember that it was the democrats that ran The South during the slavery era.
Mansfield (D-MT) and Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) publically supported the Act but on The Senate floor they constantly supported the filibuster against it.

Kennedy jumped on the bandwagon as it was fast becoming a populist issue.
During the course of crafting the legislation the democrats repeatedly filibustered against The Civil Rights Act.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
No, Cellar co-sponsored the Act after it was proposed by The Republicans.

It had nothing to do with “snarky conservatives".
It was the democrats that worked against both the Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act.

You are mixing up several laws/acts debated/passed between 1957 and 1968, so you are wrong as well.

In any case, trying to paint the civil rights legislation of the period as a simple D vs. R issue is pure folly...not saying there wasn't any partisanship then, but it was a different era in many, many ways and you can't simply project the current political landscape onto what was happening then. And just FYI, the "slavery era" you mentioned had ended nearly a hundred years earlier.

_____________________________________________________

I didn't say "there wasn't any partisanship then"

By party, it was The Republicans that got the Civil Rights Act done while the democrats fought against it.

I didn't say you did, and I specifically went out of my way to not say that as well. The five words you put in quotes completely take my words out of context in a way that changes their meaning. What I did say is that your partisan generalizations don't reflect the complete picture.

_________________________________________________________

What you say are my "partisan generalizations" misses the point.

What I did say about The Republicans pushing for and getting done The Civil Rights Act while the democrats filibustered against it is accurate.

Where the Republicans blew it was allowing the democrats to seize on it, milk it for all the votes they could buy with tax payer money and then call the Republicans racist.
A lie they perpetuate to this day.