Maddow Lies About History Yet Again
See, this is why I call her "Madcow." Not that she's a cow (nice figure, not bad looking) but she is without a doubt one of the most intellectually-false minded figures on liberal television today. In other words, she's insane (mad? get it?)
It's one thing to be ignorant about history. Either making a mistake with a date, a name, a place, what have you. But to intentionally make stuff up as to play the tired old race card just grinds my gears. And she either knows her claims are historically and factually wrong, which makes her a liar and a race-baitor, or she is simply brainless with no sense or awareness of what she's saying.
"I don't purport to understand revising civil rights history so people will think conservatives were for civil rights and not against. I do not purport to understand these revisionist efforts. I'm just telling you that's what they're doing."
As for who voted for what legislation and who was against what in terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%–29%).
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%–30%).
By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%–39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
Of course, there were a whole other slew of reasons and personalities (e.g. Robert Byrd) why the Dems tried to fillibuster and block civil rights legislation. I just wish the media would tell the truth and people like Maddow would learn it and report it accurately and fairly.
By the way, I do purport to know that Rachel Maddow is misleading and clearly doesn't know her history; modern or otherwise.
It's one thing to be ignorant about history. Either making a mistake with a date, a name, a place, what have you. But to intentionally make stuff up as to play the tired old race card just grinds my gears. And she either knows her claims are historically and factually wrong, which makes her a liar and a race-baitor, or she is simply brainless with no sense or awareness of what she's saying.
"I don't purport to understand revising civil rights history so people will think conservatives were for civil rights and not against. I do not purport to understand these revisionist efforts. I'm just telling you that's what they're doing."
As for who voted for what legislation and who was against what in terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%–29%).
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%–30%).
By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%–39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
Of course, there were a whole other slew of reasons and personalities (e.g. Robert Byrd) why the Dems tried to fillibuster and block civil rights legislation. I just wish the media would tell the truth and people like Maddow would learn it and report it accurately and fairly.
By the way, I do purport to know that Rachel Maddow is misleading and clearly doesn't know her history; modern or otherwise.
posted by Northern Exposer at 02:06
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home