dellet you stated above: "President Johnson a firm supporter for civil rights, when pressed why he, a Texan, supported the movement famously referred to using welfare to secure the black vote for something like the next 150 years. The politically motivated destruction of the American family has officially begun." This is absolute BS you have fell for.
This is a I think a good example of how people remember things to suit their wants, a common thing these days. Here is what you are referring to I believe: "This act flows from a clear and simple wrong. Its only purpose is to right that wrong. Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American, in his heart, can justify. The right is one which no American, true to our principles, can deny."
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...tol-rotunda-the-signing-the-voting-rights-act
The quote I alluded to is quite controversial, as it can not proven without a doubt. There are many throughout history.
If you search his time in political office and before, the examples are countless of his true feelings towards blacks. What is indisputable is that Johnson was a well known racist that could put it aside for political gain, as long as that gain lined his pocket or increased his power. Of course anything could be taken out of context. Just because there is a photograph of him holding up a dog by the ears, doesn’t mean he wasn’t a dog lover. He was.
A clear example of his public and private views colliding was the signing of the voting rights act. To his credit he signed it, of course it had veto proof support and he was worried about his public image. In truth, southern democrat support, his legacy, overwhelmingly voted against the right to vote, and not really in favor of the civil rights act. It seems Democrat’s of the time we’re willing to concede blacks needed rights, but did not deserve to vote.
As for journalistic coverage of war, it’s been all down hill from here. Culminating with one noted example of drawing out and publishing troop movements in the sand. Before they started out.
You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war.
William Randolph Hearst to staff photographer Spanish American war.
Earlier you seemed to agree that excessive media, though computers and internet contributed to the actions of today’s youth. That all started, again, 1965-66. With televised news of the Vietnam war nightly and in color.
It’s a well known fact that multiple witnesses to the same event will have different testimony as to what happened. This is perfectly normal. When you then move to the cause of the same disputed event, it becomes emotional, not factual. This is where a well balanced discussion is a positive thing. That’s when minds can be opened and changed. Note some of the comments here about our discussion.
It seems that 1965-66 were pivotal years for the United States and not really for the better. It’s fair to ask, who was making policy at the time? Who was writing the laws at the same time?
Edit to add
If one is to look at divorce rates, children without fathers in the home, welfare distribution from post war to today, there is no denying it is a factor in the decline of the American family unit. It affected the black family the earliest and the hardest.
