Snowdon is a dummy

You like to glorify yourself much, à la Romeo...

But it's true your response to engineer, while void of argument, managed to remain civil. So you can behave, when you want.

On the confusion between government and country, you can't possibly be serious. Do you really think MLK ought to have left his country rather than try to fix it?

If I heard MLK say that it doesn't matter who a vote is cast for...and that he was giving up on trying to fix things and refusing to vote at all...

Oh so you were patting ME in the back for MY response to engineer? Why, thanks... For one moment I thought you were so vain as to say YOUR own response to engineer was better than his post... Sorry, I should have known you can't possibly be that fatuous.

Quote:

If I heard MLK say that it doesn't matter who a vote is cast for...and that he was giving up on trying to fix things and refusing to vote at all...

Most of your compatriots never vote, and a great deal of them because they think their vote does not count. So you should tell a good hundred million Americans to leave.

You are getting desperate, Olivier, because you see you have dug yourself another hole...as you so often do when starting your nonsense with me.

Frank wrote,

Quote:

You are getting desperate, Olivier, because you see you have dug yourself another hole...as you so often do when starting your nonsense with me.

It's endless! LOL He wouldn't know scorn or mocking if someone bothered to teach him.

I understand what you're saying about MLK, but that was a different time and place when our government was working; we had the right people in the administration and congress who had the understanding of what civil rights was all about. This is a different time and age when the Tea Party has taken over our government, and nothing is working.

Our government can't even fund the crisis at the Mexican border - an urgent crisis about children, and the Tea Party is playing politics with this crisis.

We now have a party, the GOP, that works hard to disenfranchise voters in many states. They do everything in their power to disenfranchise women, minorities, seniors, students, the middle class and the poor, gays and lesbians, and almost everybody one can think of. Even the SCOTUS just voted to defend Hobby Lobby from providing contraception to women. The five men on the Supreme Court voted for it. Is the American people doing anything to change this? Show me? How long do you think it'll take to change this dastardly scenario? I'm a realist. At 79, there's not much more I can do for this country. I voted in all elections - both national and local, served in the military for four years, wrote to my congressmen and presidents, and none made any difference.

You can't see that difference? I can.

Johnson's appeal to Congress[edit]
The assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, changed the political situation. Kennedy's successor as president, Lyndon Johnson, made use of his experience in legislative politics, along with the bully pulpit he wielded as president, in support of the bill. In his first address to a joint session of Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."[12]

Judiciary Committee chairman Celler filed a petition to discharge the bill from the Rules Committee; it required the support of a majority of House members to move the bill to the floor. Initially Celler had a difficult time acquiring the signatures necessary, because even many congressmen who supported the civil rights bill itself were cautious about violating normal House procedure with the discharge petition. By the time of the 1963 winter recess, 50 signatures were still needed.

The record of the roll call vote kept by the House Clerk on final passage of the bill.
After the return of Congress from its winter recess, however, it was apparent that public opinion in the North favored the bill and that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To avert the humiliation of a successful discharge petition, Chairman Smith relented and allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee.

Passage in the Senate
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill. This was the only time the two men ever met; their meeting lasted only one minute.[13]
Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate.

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[14] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[15]

The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[16]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[17]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[18]

All Frank is saying is, from he has gathered in reading several posts of CI's is that CI thinks no matter who is elected to run the government, this country has no chance to get better than it is right now. Like there is nothing we can do to make it better so why bother to vote because no one can make it better. 

Canadians, any interest is a mass emigration from below the border?

Whatever. You're not dumping a hundred million Americans onto the rest of us, sorry...

Too many coming up from the US already. If I knew who to vote for to make it stop, I'd do it.

Quote:

All Frank is saying is, from he has gathered in reading several posts of CI's is that CI thinks no matter who is elected to run the government, this country has no chance to get better than it is right now. Like there is nothing we can do to make it better so why bother to vote because no one can make it better. 

That's not ALL what Frank is saying. That's in fact what CI is saying. What Frank is saying is that, because ci thinks so, HE SHOULD LEAVE THE COUNTRY. This is what I have an issue with. He is also saying that whoever dislike the way the country is governed, HATES THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.

Do you agree with Frank on those two points, rev?

Hey, Frankie boy...

... pissing and moaning is all part of the FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

You don't get it, do you? LOL

In some countries, when the piss and moan, they either get thrown in jail, tortured, or killed.

The US still has the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, but our government also intrudes into our personal telephone calls and emails.