Buddy:

• If I can't get through with direct quotes from those who were a part of that era, specifically noting liberals FOR and conservatives OPPOSED

• If I can't cite primary historical sources from Senate.gov and Archives.gov detailing the same.

• If you can't muster a single source to support your position that contrasts what I already cited, as you simultaneously ignore these direct quotes...

... Then I believe we are done here.

It may make you sound smart to dumb people, but it makes you sound dumb to smart people. It’s unnatural and reeks of somebody who’s trying to hard. It’s why that other guy keeps posting that little meme of a smug guy under your comments. He’s making fun of how cringey you sound.

Buddy, if you can't actually remark on exactly where I'm using language wrong, then it's FAR more probable that my word-choice might just strike above what you're used to and this a desperate attempt to sling shade.

Besides, if I "dumbed down" my language to my Appalachian roots, then you'd try condescension with me and espouse how much more educated and academic you are to me. Apparently I beat you to the punch, and that upsets you. Who knows -- maybe there's a bit of personal insecurity and projection going on here. All I know is that it's a pretty fucking pathetic low-blow. Should be noted that I tend to reflect the tone and let them stoop to a lower level. So maybe look in the mirror. If you can't take it, then don't dish it out, buddy.

As for the other user, I don't really care — that kid's frankly not that bright or informed on the issues. At least you presented a cogent argument by contrast. If you think I'm being smug, go join the fucking Trumpers who cry about elitism and feeling insecure around people who are educated — I really don't care, buddy. Now until you actually respond to my sources, my logic, instead of hopping around more than the Easter bunny, then kindly stay down.

Frankly because now your argument has descended into personal attacks on me it sounds like you're — as you said — "cataclysmically" desperate.

I think for fun I'll just re-quote the primary sources:

the biggest headaches for Democratic leader Mike Mansfield often came not from Republicans but from the conservative bloc of his own party caucus

Dominating the GOP caucus, many conservatives believed the civil rights bill represented an unprecedented intrusion by the state into the daily lives of Americans.

You had a battle with the conservatives on the committee, the southern Democrats, conservative Republicans, but you had just as tough a battle with the liberals. Their position was the old story of the half loaf or three-quarters of a loaf, and [now they were saying] “we’ll settle for nothing less [than the whole loaf.]” . . . We shared their views, and we’d love to do it their way.