Are you happy with the state/province/country you live in?

[Molandfreak]

Naturally, however, if you are going to make a case against the specific legislation without clarifying that the act of desegregation itself was good, it is going to raise some suspicion from critics in the 2020s, and probably embolden more dishonest actors within your fanbase to repeat the same rhetoric.

The very next line that Kirk said after "I think we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s" was this:  "Not because we shouldn't have dealt with Jim Crow — that was evil and immoral".

How much more explicit do you want him to have been that he believed the act of desegregation itself was good?

I've found his other expressed sentiments regarding the Act to be quite problematic (e.g., the nonsense about The Civil Rights Act of 1964 being overextended since it is used for legal action regarding inequal "effects" on racial groups (without delving into the reasons behind such effects) and to protecting trans rights) and pretty much be sickening to me.

Took some friends of mine who were Kirk fans up on their challenge to sit down and watch Kirk unedited for a long time the other day -- watched his America Fest 2023 speech, an episode of his show and some clips my friends suggested (which included the one where he said he was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to it being extended to trans rights; have no idea why my friends thought that was a good point -- You see?  He's not racist!  He just has another terrible opinion!).  Kept an open mind and I was sickened to find that his rhetoric and tone made me feel worse than before the experiment.  Couldn't believe it.  Still sort of stunned/dazed about it.

To be honest, both his fans and haters have cherry-picked his statements to death to only include the positive or negative stuff and leaving out everything else.

I do wish he would have remained consistent on Juneteenth and not flipped on it just because it became a federal holiday under Democratic leadership.

[Rothman]

Naturally, however, if you are going to make a case against the specific legislation without clarifying that the act of desegregation itself was good, it is going to raise some suspicion from critics in the 2020s, and probably embolden more dishonest actors within your fanbase to repeat the same rhetoric.

The very next line that Kirk said after "I think we made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the mid-1960s" was this:  "Not because we shouldn't have dealt with Jim Crow — that was evil and immoral".

How much more explicit do you want him to have been that he believed the act of desegregation itself was good?

I've found his other expressed sentiments regarding the Act to be quite problematic (e.g., the nonsense about The Civil Rights Act of 1964 being overextended since it is used for legal action regarding inequal "effects" on racial groups (without delving into the reasons behind such effects) and to protecting trans rights) and pretty much be sickening to me.

Took some friends of mine who were Kirk fans up on their challenge to sit down and watch Kirk unedited for a long time the other day -- watched his America Fest 2023 speech, an episode of his show and some clips my friends suggested (which included the one where he said he was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to it being extended to trans rights; have no idea why my friends thought that was a good point -- You see?  He's not racist!  He just has another terrible opinion!).  Kept an open mind and I was sickened to find that his rhetoric and tone made me feel worse than before the experiment.  Couldn't believe it.  Still sort of stunned/dazed about it.

To be honest, both his fans and haters have cherry-picked his statements to death to only include the positive or negative stuff and leaving out everything else.

Neutral stuff tends to be...neutral.
ETA: Wonder if you understood what I wrote.

[Scott5114]

Case in point—the President has the authority to nuke Beijing or Moscow pretty much whenever. That would affect everyone's life pretty much immediately. We only have the luxury of saying "the President doesn't affect my life!" because, so far, every President has chosen not to do that.

I mean, I'm pretty sure my next-door neighbor owns guns.  He could walk up to the house while I'm sitting on the front porch and shoot me in the face.  The only reason he hasn't is that, so far, he has chosen not to.

Which means something, probably.

And yet the President could do that without even walking up to the house.

[kphoger]

I've found his other expressed sentiments regarding the Act to be quite problematic (e.g., the nonsense about The Civil Rights Act of 1964 being overextended since it is used for legal action regarding inequal "effects" on racial groups (without delving into the reasons behind such effects) and to protecting trans rights) and pretty much be sickening to me.

Took some friends of mine who were Kirk fans up on their challenge to sit down and watch Kirk unedited for a long time the other day -- watched his America Fest 2023 speech, an episode of his show and some clips my friends suggested (which included the one where he said he was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to it being extended to trans rights; have no idea why my friends thought that was a good point -- You see?  He's not racist!  He just has another terrible opinion!).  Kept an open mind and I was sickened to find that his rhetoric and tone made me feel worse than before the experiment.  Couldn't believe it.  Still sort of stunned/dazed about it.

I haven't weighed in on what I think of his positions, because (1) I don't know enough about them to form a proper opinion and (2) that would be political conversation by definition.  My only point was that he clearly and explicitly said he thought segregation was evil and was rightly gotten rid of, in response to the accusation by |Molandfreak| that he had made his CRA '64 statement "without clarifying that the act of desegregation itself was good".  That was clearly not true.