Grump I guess you think those penal colonies were not for the financial benefit of slave labor and to rid England of the debtor class who were put in prison for not paying debt and then discovered it cost England money to keep them in prison so they exported labor to the penal colonies who not only made money for the ones who ran the places but also cut the cost of good ole England and got rid of a lot of the "Lower classes" Win Win. As for your point about Religious colonies you are correct that the main reason was to escape religious persuasion and enjoy their brand of religious freedom which of course meant no freedom for those who did not share their views but no problem each group had their own colony protected by the Crown. However the idea was they colonies could be profitable and make the person who owned the colony money as well which most of the did.
As for you "expert opinion" on capitalism and the history of it you are entitled to try to deceive and lie and mislead all you want but I don't buy what your selling so go peddle it to someone else. Your claim that "Not many abuse children is a pure LIE and you know it. Why do you defend child abusers? Globalism is all about cheap labor and child labor, slave labor are part of that. No country goes into a 3rd world country and brings the labor laws of their own country into that 3rd world country and all engage in the use of labor not protect by labor laws of again non 3rd world countries.
My economic and religious belief are one in the same and can be found in the NT. I know Jesus is not your Lord so you of course refuse to accept His eco doctrine of loving and caring for your neighbor and protecting children and I do indeed believe that His system is the only system that will work. All others will be judged in the end by it.
If you know something such as child abuse is evil and you do all you can to engage in such an evil you have become an evil doer.
dakine so I guess if you own a cafe then whites only for customers is just fine with you? That was indeed the mind set of a lot of people 60 years ago. Your not as liberal as you think you are and if you think Jesus wants his followers to discriminate then I do not know what Jesus you read of in the NT. You are a follower of Jesus. As such you are not entitled to your own opinion being correct if it is not in line with Jesus. So a "Christian" business owner MUST conduct himself by the Law of the Kingdom of God. The law of the USA on discrimination does indeed agree with Jesus teachings proof again that God does use the Gov at times to protect others and to enforce His will upon folks like you who believe that discrimination is a right.
Of course you have free will to decide to not follow Jesus teaching and not serve blacks or browns or Irish or Asians but that will not in agreement with the teachings of Jesus would then be sin. Were those in the South who owned a business and refused to do business with blacks sinning? Yes they were. It is sin regardless if the business owner is a believer or not or the person being discriminated against was a believer or not. The act of discrimination is the SIN. How can you refuse to serve your neighbor and not sin?
dakine funny how you use the same logic as the NRA. Do you believe that logic trail that you take away one gun soon all will follow? I wasn't aware you were in the SC building to listen to the trail but since you know that the SSM folks claimed they were "made" that way I guess you heard that yourself. I did not nor did I read in the decision that such a "FACT" was considered by any of the Justices. I know of NO study by science that has said one way or the other that homosexuality is a gene that is passed on do you?
For a person or group of people to "claim" that their genes made them do it is one thing for science or Law to agree with it is another. A murder could make that claim so by your logic soon murder will be legal.
I am afraid that your personal feelings on SSM has totally taken away your usual good logic patterns.
I have never heard a doctor who deals with Pedophilia say it is inherited but I do know that not one said that a full blown pedophilia (one that has moved from looking to doing) can not be cured. Now as a believer I can not believe that Jesus can not set such a person free as He can cast out any demon or heal any sickness and pedophilia has to be one or the other. I have arrested several Pedophilia addicts and the internet has blow open so many doors of exposure to those who practice Pedophilia from just looking to "hooking up" that it scary. It is a billion dollar business Today. Not only women are bought and sold but children as well.
To compare that with homosexual Marriage which any way you cut it is two homosexual saying we want to live a life as JUST US like none homosexual say they will do is sadly lower the bar on the dangerous and deadly trade of Pedopilia which does indeed include murder as a disposable end of object of sex that has served its purpose. It is far more than apples and oranges its apples and T Rex.
Lake once again you prove that you know nothing of history. It was the greed of those nations you mentioned that caused colonalism. Capitalism not Christianity. Today Capitalism still abuses children, enslaves labor and has zero concern for anyone but the folks with the capital. It is not Christianity that uses child labor but Global corps. As for America doing all you said. Yes they did and it was not the missionaries that did it but again it was done for wealth and power and a Gov. policy of enslave on reservations or kill all indians as the spread of the American eco engine was far more important than human rights.
You have the wrong enemy on this one and you fail to see that history is full of this sort of expansion for wealth and power. Sometimes we use the mantra of "lower prices for American's" and sometimes we even say it is for the good of the children that they are enslaved and abused. But the real reason is and always has been power and money.
goodoldtruth let me ask you a question. As a believer let us say you run a business would you not hire a homosexual as an employee ONLY because they were homosexual? If so lets say that ALL Christians followed your example what are you showing the world? If all decided that Homosexuals should not be employed then they would all starve to death is that love?
You would say to the Homosexual I refuse to hire you because of your sin but I do love you and I invite you to come to my church and see how much we love sinners?
Do you think God does not know now who the homosexuals are among us? Do you really think all those that will get SSM are IN THE CLOSET? Do you think a law against them marrying will do away with such sin? If so why has it not done so since this decision just changed that and 200 years of NO Marriage seems to have failed has it not. What has been the church response to Homosexual?
Love or separation? Paul says that Love is the better and more powerful way because Love can change the hearth will law will not. If law was enough why did Jesus have to come and die and replace the law with grace and faith?
It is indeed strange that those the most upset by this decision are those who call Jesus their Lord yet I see no deep love for those SSM folks to receive the Gospel just some fear that they somehow will corrupt the world (which seems pretty well corrupted and according to scripture should be) and worse yet Christian now have to accept SSM which has not changed a non Homosexual into one but has merely said the word marriage no longer does not apply to Homosexuals who wish to make their cohabitation sin legal in only the eyes of the world. You are not judged by the laws of the world but by the actions of your heart. Has your heart been assaulted by this decision? Has your behavior been changed? Did God suffer defeat at the hands of the SC? Your action toward Homosexuals remains the same as before this decision in God eye
dakine do you see moral decay in a country where folks that go to church aid and abet the abuse of children? Do you see those called to care for children and love and protect them spend even 1/20th of their time concerned about abuse of child labor outside the US as they abortions in the US? Do you think SSM upsets God more than than the abuse of children?
Two wrongs do not make a right that is not what I am saying but if you see SSM are the end time omen's that you seem to what about child abuse to the God of Capitalism? The worship of Globalism which is the engine that drives the abuse of chidren and human slavery and abuse of all they can? One is sooooo bad and evil while the other we go to Walmart to find the best deal on products made by such evil treatment.
Yes I would go eat dinner with the contractor of child abuse labor and try to show him the love of Jesus which can change the heart of man.
Amazing Grace was written by a man so changed and He was changed by the love of God not rules and law and hypocrisy of the church which is in bed with the child abusers by their worship of capitalism being the chosen eco system of Christianity. Forgiveness and acceptance of those of capitalism who make money off the labor of children and a seat in the front row but for SSM folks hell fire and brimstone.
Funny I do not see Jesus including SSM folks in the least of them. Children yes Homosexual no but what does Jesus know we American's know more in our churches than He does but he in 2000 years has lost touch with reality I suppose and should know that capitalism and Globalism are both part of American Christian doctrine. Love and forgiveness shows weakness and who wants to be weak?
Grump once again you try to twist and Lie your away from what you posted and argued with Lake. Nothing new out of you just same old lies, twist and deversions but I see through you and catch you everytime. But frankly you are becoming boring with nothing new to add.
You again try to use scripture but do so totally wrong as you know. What of the women caught in adultry?
She was a sinner forgiven was she not? Go and sin no more you say or left unsaid as you know the anwer to that weak point don't you. If Jesus also said you forgive 7 time 70 he would the next do do the exact same thing with the women if she was again dragged before for judgement. He never even accused her much less threaten her with ONE LAST CHANCE.
You totally dodge or avoid the Love issue which was my point. I agree that SSM is sin as I said. My point is we do love the sinner in such a homosexual relationship the same as we are told to love any sinner. Jesus loved the women and even loved the rich young ruler who rejected Jesus he did not consider himself TOO GOOD to forgiven them or even separate himself from sinners like them.
I do indeed disagree with you in almost every possible so do not pretend to tell me that I do not. Once again the old trick of putting words in my mouth by you. You are getting too easy to see through careful others on this list might start to see it and see you for you are. You want to hold up the framers as though holy I do not.
They were men who made mistakes in the original document and that document needed to be amended and it has been all legally done. Done as I said by the legislative process which again complies with the separation of the branches.
For Christian on this list who are upset I get why. But for folks like you it is all about money. Once SSM is legal benefits have to be furnished and that is what those who worship capitalism wanted to avoid.
The sin is in the heart and law either does not change that.
Lake lets see how well NASCAR Polices their policy on the FLAG first. It is easy to say something but action speaks louder than words. BTW I see nothing in common with a bunch of #$%$ racist at a car race waving a flag showing whatever it is the flag means and a flag being part of a state flag or being flow on state ground or any other official Gov. building or area for common use such as park. The same freedom that you extend to SSM applies to racist as well does it not? They have a right to THINK wrong and to wave a flag to show that wrong thinking and they are breaking no law in doing that (so far) They have the same equal protection under Law as does the SSM folks.
I am not a Homosexual or a racist but it seems to me that two racist can get married of the same race and hang out a battle flag from their home if they want too. America is a land of protection for all beliefs good and bad and while I may not like some of the things protected I see our Nation of Law being our only true protection from each other. The Gay, the racist, the religious, the greedy, the selfish, the nice all protected equally under law and IF they violate some law or accused of doing so ALL are entitled to the same right of trail and defense that is what makes us a nation of Law.
NASCAR is a capitalist car race assoc. that is out to make money and take peoples minds off their troubles for while at the race. Who cares what they do and No I would never pay good money to go to a NASCAR event but would defend the right of them to have such events even with Battle Flags flying everywhere.
Lake you have fallen into grump trap I see. He twisted the truth about How our Nation is governed by first going to the Const. which you rebutted most of then He twisted to claiming that the legislative branch should make the law only. Clearly that is wrong.
Let me redirect what the Court did on the SSM issue. It did NOT MAKE LAW. It is NOT an issue of the Const. and the Framers as Grump and others always want to say. It is a matter of LAW under the Const. That law clearly says Amendments can be added and taken away to the Original document.
After the Civil War amendments were added LEGALLY to the Const. The EQUAL PROTECT clause was one of those added. It did not address SSM but did as you say and Grump twists, lies and distorts deal with Equality for ALL.
Those amendments BTW WERE PASSED by the Legislative branch a FACT that Grump wants you to pass over. The SC has NEVER declared any of the Amendments unconst. Thus they are law and MUST be applied to ALL issues of LAW and where are they APPLIED? Before the Courts as the Const requires. The final Court being the SC if it has to go that high.
I know you like to side with Grump when he battles me but do not let him fool you with his twist and turns and lies as he has tried to do in this case. The Original Const is NOT the Law of the Land nor was ever entended to be as IT and IT along left open the door to AMEND itself in areas that were needed.
I do not care what Geo. Washington would of though about SSM or women voting or slavery who cares nor would I care what the Const said about it back in 1776 that is a dated document that has been and will continue to be amended just as itself says it can be done. The GOP and Grump are telling Lies and going back into history to try to make folks forget that amendments are just as much a part of the Const as SSM now is protected by Federal Law.
Was it a correct decision based on Law? Of course. Jesus would approve of the decision as well.
Dman I was late in reading your response so I must apologize to you for thinking in past post you had stated you were not a believer. I must of got you confused with another on this list so again accept my apology and i accept your statement that you understand you are a sinner as I am. As a believer every thing I post must be judged by my faith and behavior as to how well it represents Jesus teachings. I fail at that way too much I admit that as well. As a person who says Jesus is my Lord that means He is King and His Kingdom rules in ALL matters. I am not given a vote on them. Your post showed a disrespect for the leader of our Country and had no honor toward him at all. Jesus says we must not do that GOP or DEMO does not matter. So you might read the bible for yourself to make sure I am stating the truth and IF I am you need to look at what you said and if not in line with Jesus consider if you need to ask forgiveness or not. I have to many times about what I thought and said about GW Bush.
You encircle a lot of different kinds of sin as it they were the same sin. They are sin but the results of those sins differ a lot. I suppose what your trying to get at and others as well is sin in the past tense can be forgiven but sin that is still practiced is not forgivable?
A SSM couple would Still be in sin as would anyone who practices any of the other sins you list. ( I am not sure I consider polygamists sinners but that is another debate) and as sinners would be judged by the Kingdom of the World laws as well as the Kingdom of God laws. They are not always the same are they? You assume that they do not realize that they do wrong which is merely our idea and not proof. The pedophiles according to most experts do know they are doing wrong but continue anyway. Much like I do when I have money to help a needy person and choose not to help. I know but I still do wrong.
I am to fogive, turn the other cheek and let God Judge.
derrickman keep on posting and continue to show the board what a closed minded idiot you are. You are not a Christian like I am. I do not have the urge to marry someone of my own sex especially since I am married to the same women for 45 years. I consider Homosexuality a sin and so would such a same sex marriage but that is not the LAW of the Land I live in it is the Law of the Kingdom of God of which I belong. The Kingdom of God entrance is by Grace through faith ALONE. Anyone can get into the Kingdom of God.
God is also against greed and selfishness do you want the USA to pass a law to make those things illegal?
God Kingdom is also against SEX outside of marriage between a male and female would you support a USA Law making that the only way to have sex with a man and female?
I have never went to a church in my 45 years of going to a lot of different churches of different types of belief and non of them had a homosexual problem with membership in breaking up marriages. Adultery yes, greed yes, materialism yes, stealing yes, racism yes, selfishness oh yes, divorce indeed yes but same sex marriage or homosexuality nope. Unfortunately most homosexual view church and church people as the enemy who do not love them, judge them and do not want them around and for the most part they are correct.
They are compared to the list of people that you put up as the same as homosexuals.
When was the last time a homosexual person did anything harmful to you? Do you fear they will?
Drunks are more dangerous so maybe a drunk homosexual you would be right to fear. We accept all kinds of sinners in our homes do we not? You go into your home and you are a sinner just not the sin of homosexuality. Good think God is more forgiving and acceptable of sinners than most on this list seems to be and somehow most consider the sin of homosexuality worse than their own sin for which Jesus had to die.
Is Jesus your Lord derrickman if who or what is?
Grump you really are getting desperate to disagree with me arn't you lol. You of course have to try to make the connection that I am some how no different than ISIS really showing how silly you have become.
I guess I have more respect for Conservatives than you do which surprises me. Racist and rednecks and anti Gov nut jobs I would agree with your argument about the shooting and the flag but I do not consider all conservatives in that vain and in fact I consider a difference between conservatives and those types. They may all vote GOP but they are not all alike. Many Conservatives have tried to take down the flags and Texas a very Conservative State to say the least just won a SC decision (5-4 with Thomas being the swing vote) that does not allow the battle flag to be on state license plate. Texas DOES NOT fly the Battle Flag on State grounds and the GOP has controlled Texas for over 20 years so much for your idea about the shooting being the only motive for NOW doing somthing. You being a liar want to say that somehow by being against flying the Battle Flag on State Grounds I am against History and Memorials which is just another Lie you peddle. I signed my name to the VVAW back in 1972. I voiced my disapproval of war on Iraq and the bombing of population. I had to go to Viet Nam to see and experience the War before I realized how wrong it was however the War was not the USA as the majority of the USA myself included by vote finally put an end to the war. Our flag is not one of traitors history that flew over battlefields in which hundred of thousands of American's died. Sam Houston was one Southern Senator that resigned his office rather than be a part of being a traitor. The Southern States in order to reenter the Union had to sign an agreement to submit to the law of the USA which they rebelled against and took up arms and attacked the USA. No one is saying to expunge history as you well know just a flag on State grounds.
dakine let me make myself clearer on what I meant by religious issue. Christians consider homosexuality a sin and marriage is between a male and female only. The same sex marriage will NOT FORCE any Christian preacher to marry a same sex couple nor will they be FORCED to open their church up to such a wedding.
That is not in the Bill. As a believer I would have no problem going to a same sex marriage held where it is held. I would have no problem with a married same sex couple coming to the church I went too. I would not attend a church that would not allow a sinner to enter its door would you? The Christian Church 100 years ago had a totally different doctrine about divorce and divorced people even 50 years ago it was different than it is today. The bible has not changed the church has changed. This Bill does not change the church at all and religious freedom is not hurt in the least. I think Jesus would of went to a same sex marriage and He surely would want same sex married people going to church or homosexuals or adulterous people, divorce people and people who are shacked up. People who are selfish, greedy, and all other nature of sin.
What the GOP is doing is pandering to the religious vote. Does Donald Trump care what Jesus wants in a marriage or a divorce? How many of those running for president as Christians understand that Paul's letters were written to Christian's ONLY about behavior. No Christian should marry one of the same sex but Paul says we are not to avoid people of the world. I think for a Christian who runs a business to refuse service to a same sex wedding is to avoid a chance to show the Love of God to them and leave them alone to do business with someone who does not know God. You will not "catch" same sex marriage.
Same sex marriage is between consenting adults. Pedophilia is viewed as wrong by a vast majority of people believers or not and you really use a terrible apples and oranges example.
Grump you ask Lake that efforts by "LIBERALS" to eradicate symbols of the CSA is like ISIL. Do you call the present Gov of SC a liberal? The 4 Govorners who signed on to her idea as all Liberals? You actually see this as Liberal verses Conservative issue do you? So ALL you conservatives like to fly the battle flag do you?
I doubt that and many clear thinking conservatives would join and have joined in an effort to end this long overdue practice. I guess the Governor of Miss or was it Ala. a Liberal lol.
You are so centered on your THEM Vs US idea on everything you see that you use the term Liberal to on this issue cover a lot of not even RHINO GOP but hard core conservatives that see this as not a Liberal vs. Conservative issue but as one of right or wrong. You may disagree and be a liberal or a conservative can you not or is this Flag a bedrock of Conservative idealism?
How about it you conservatives do you consider any Conservatives who favor removing the battle flag a Liberal? Or perhaps just an American that sees the downside that the flag represents to millions of other Americans?
dakine clearly Lake is a little upset with the judge as he can't even get his name correct. I prefer to look at the logic the judge uses in his decision. He almost always is a States right kind of guy.
I doubt he would rule that slavery should still be up to the states but that and Jim Crowe laws were based on the right of the State to control the FREEDOM of the folks of that State and not the Federal Gov. Freedom a word often used by GOP types when it comes to gun control not so much when considering the Freedom of a women to have an abortion which again the States are trying their best to wittle down the Federal law as much as they can get away with.
Now we come to back to State rights, Gay union question. Instead of looking at this as a Freedom issue the GOP looks at it as a religious issue although they do not have the honesty to admit. So they fall back on Marriage has always been between male and female and thus what has always been should always be. Slavery was Always been until it was done away with. Women rights was always never and now they have rights. So much for the always was always will be as logic it fails the logic test totally. Time changes all things except Gay unions I suppose. Now let us look at Jim Crowe laws controlled by the states. Freedom to eat where you want denied. Freedom to sleep where you want denied. Freedom to get equal education denied. Freedom to get a drink of water anywhere there is water denied. All denied by the State rights doctrine. All declared long ago by a SC to be unconstitutional. Now comes the 4 judges and rules that the states should have the right not to control who a person loves as even the GOP right wing knows this can not be done. But they do believe the states has the rights to tell folks who love each and care for each other and share their lives together and all that protected by Federal Law and upheld now the 4 say Yes but they can not marry. Logic? none at all.
This make the second time that Chief Justice Roberts has shown that while he is indeed a conservative thinking individual he seems to be the old style conservative. He dives into a law like a lawyer first and a conservative second which is exactly what a judge should do. He clearly comes out in today decision as a guy that tends to be a deep thinker. He turned the words of the other 4 conservative judges words against them in the last ACA case to base this decision. In other words he said to his 4 other conservative judges you can't have it both under law it does not work that way. He took their own reasoning as they furnished in writing to base his decision on this latest case on ACA. Rather you agree with Justice Roberts or not one thing for sure he established himself as a justice who knows how to dive into the words of a law and let the chips fall.
The GOP has long cried that the SC is not suppose to write law or create law and that is the job of the Congress and yet in the last 4 years we see case after case being filed by the GOP supports to try to get the SC to rewrite the law to suit the agenda of the GOP. Roberts clearly said today if you want me to do that you better be able to show me by law why I should.
It will be interesting to see what the vote is on same sex marriage. 6-3 on ACA surprised most who follow the court and was expected to be the closest of the two cases. I can honestly say I am awaiting to see what Roberts has to say on his findings on the case.
scs I said long ago that the South was racist and the south voted Demo across the board. However if you think that GOP voters and elected officials in the south were not racist then you are deluded. In order to win an election in the south you had to be a racist because racism was the LAW. Both Parties in the South were racist. If you were black in the South back in the day you voted for either a racist Demo party or a racist GOP party. However the Demo party even while racist gave the blacks labor laws and SS and some states provided "charity Hospitals" paid for by the state for poor of every race. Huey P. Long was like all of his age a racist politician but he was considered pro working man (black and white) and taxed the rich to give poor folks more benefits so he got not only the poor white votes but blacks as well.
In Texas back in the 50's and 60's the only party to win was the Demo. It had two factions within it. One the old conservative Demo party the other the Liberal Demo party. John Tower was the first Senator of GOP since the post civil war days of reconstruction. Tower was GOP and Yarborough was the Demo, Yarborough was the last Liberal Demo to be elected to the Senate in Texas. He was the only Senator in the South of either party to vote Yes to the CRA.
I am not going to let you try to change what I posted that the South was racist in Both parties. The rest of the Nation that was not the case. Both Demo and GOP had racist and non racist outside the South the Demo party just had more non racist than the GOP as my post about non South voting on the CRA proved.
Live with it you can not change facts and they are clear. Both Lake and I agree that the South was racist and they were by Law. If you were elected to office you had to obey the law. The Demo party was not any more racist than the GOP as both obeyed the racist Jim Crowe laws until the SC struck it down. (Demo controlled SC too)
My point which you refused to admit was the SOUTH was almost 100% against the CRA in both parties.
The south was totally racist at that times are you going to deny that? So you had elected racist officials in the South that of course were going to vote against as their racist voters demanded of them.
Take away the South from that and the Demo party indeed did have more Senators and House members voting for it than against it. Take away the still racist South from the National scene and you would have a totally different country as the backbone of GOP is the South. They have increased their strength in other areas I will admit that but without the South and its racist voters the GOP would not be able to be the extreme right party that it has become on the Strength of the Southern vote. The West has helped them but the South has remained the area they count on regardless who they run for president and why it will be hard for any Southern GOP to get the nod. They do not need a canidate from the South to carry a state with fla. being the possible exception as the South will vote GOP regardless of who the Demo's run.
Just to set the record straight scs you know in the interest of truth I have never said that with the South included the GOP % for the CRA was not more than the Demo %. It was by my posting of the vote outside of the South to show the true way the Nation was going. Answer me this? Do you consider the vote against the CRA to be a racist vote? I do do you? Look and see how many of those in the Demo party in the South went over to the GOP after that vote. The South was racist to the core and remains racist today perhaps not by the same % but racism is easy to find down South.
scs you can't admit when your wrong can you lol typical of you boys on the right. The fact is that the RED STATE represent the REDS who sent them to office while the Blues do the same to represent the Blues interest and belief's. There long since ceased to be a NATIONAL interest except when FDR declared war on Japan and Germany. GW Bush distorted ideas about Iraq got the majority of Congress to support War but even that was more a party line vote. The Parties determine what the national interest will be. And the parties know that in order to get elected and have power they must pander themselves to the desires of the people in the Area that Congressman and Senators run for elections.
Your little cute display of How the US is governed is a joke and you are hopeless if you actually believe that in realty that is the way it happens. The GOP panders to the rich, religious issues, racial issues and gun control and so called FREE MARKET. That is supported more in the South than in any other area and always has been even when south was Demo it was the same issues. The Demo party MOVED away from its old issues and left behind the South when they did. The Demo party was the party of the working men and still is and the GOP is the party of the ownership of those that hire workers. In order to get workers to vote against their own interest the GOP brings into its platform religion, guns, abortion, anti gay and stances that are anti minority and anti poor. 47% of America does not matter to the GOP as Romney said this to a crowd of very rich GOP backers who gave money to win power to make sure the 47% continued to be overlooked.
You go and quote your little civics class info like you alone discovered that and maybe one day you may wake up and see how Power, money and the real world run things but you already know surely?
scs Congress does not represent our nation as you claim. Each congressperson reppresents their dist. first or they would not get reelected. Each Senator represents their State first or again they would not get re elected. Congress Votes on what will be National Law and National interest that is true but unfortunely their first loyality is not to the USA but the area that elects them. Since you are not a native Texans and did not take Texas History in school I guess you know little about Sam Houston who while President of Texas and later Senator of Texas put the USA ahead of Texas or considered them both the same and thus did not vote to succeed from the Union and resigned from the Senate Seat instead of joining the Traitiors of Texas that went against Houston's beloved USA. Ralph Yarborough was the Demo Sen of Tex. and John Tower the GOP at the Voting rights time. Ralph voted yes the ONLY Southern Senator of either party to do so and was not reelected the next race and Tower continued on his political career.
The point that the votes clearly shows is that the South both GOP and Demo were racist to the core and most remain so today or they would not get reelected. Take the southern votes away and the other 37 states voted yes Demo more than GOP in the voting rights vote. The south was and remains racist thinking. Today NO Southern politician of either party would dare vote against such a bill as it would expose them as the racist they feel their dist. and State are but by flying a confederate battle flag on state grounds shows that the voters want to see it and it will show up in the votes to end it if in fact it does pass in SC. They will tell every lie they can to try to make it for other reasons than racism but in the end that flag stands for what the Klan uses it for in their rallies and EVERYONE born and raised in the South understands that.