Clarence Thomas attacks Brown v. Board ruling amid 70th anniversary

[there4eyeM]

Some people would have decisions made by feelings rather than by agreed upon legal constraints.

 

[Robert W]

Red herring?!

Neither I nor any source I'd link to would claim Northerners, let alone Northern Democrats were free of racism. The Southern Strategy of the Republican party would not even be thinkable in the old GOP. But leading up to the 1960s, the party leaders from the South, party leaders in both houses of the US Congress, were intent on keeping Jim Crow on life support.

Southerners lost the American Civil War. Slavery was a major issue for the South. When they lost, they invited Jim Crow to live in America. White Southern Christian Conservatives.

Clearly there was what you call racism, all over the USA. It was not confined to the South. Democrats of the north were democrats for different reasons. Sure I went to the South in the early 1960s and saw racism up close. Very different as I was a Democrat from CA and not one bit like those racists. But I was not a Democrat due to race. Democrats in the South were experiencing an influx of new people. Those from the North liked the better weather. And wanted cheaper property. This is why we find Democrats over time losing power as the Republicans decided now that racism was supposedly gone, they would want to live in the South. Democrats lost the Civil War. Trying to pretend they were not democrats is proven by history to be wrong. A good many blacks do not believe your version of history.

 

[Robert W]

Some people would have decisions made by feelings rather than by agreed upon legal constraints.

Why would I move back to the left?

 

[Robert W]

Slavery was a major issue for the South.

As to being in the union sure. But not why they fought the Civil war. You would probably fight an army there to conquer you too if they did as Lincoln did to the South. HE forced the war.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As to being in the union sure. But not why they fought the Civil war. You would probably fight an army there to conquer you too if they did as Lincoln did to the South. HE forced the war.

revisionist

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Clearly there was what you call racism, all over the USA. It was not confined to the South. Democrats of the north were democrats for different reasons. Sure I went to the South in the early 1960s and saw racism up close. Very different as I was a Democrat from CA and not one bit like those racists.

Was Jim Crow widespread across the US?

But I was not a Democrat due to race. Democrats in the South were experiencing an influx of new people. Those from the North liked the better weather. And wanted cheaper property. This is why we find Democrats over time losing power as the Republicans decided now that racism was supposedly gone, they would want to live in the South.

Democrats lost the Civil War. Trying to pretend they were not democrats is proven by history to be wrong. A good many blacks do not believe your version of history.

Democrats who lost the Civil War were -- Southerners, correct?

"A good many blacks?" This is proof of what? Define a good many. Then stop pretending you are not what you are. We've seen your disgusting racists posts.

 

[Robert W]

Was Jim Crow widespread across the US?





Democrats who lost the Civil War were -- Southerners, correct?

"A good many blacks?" This is proof of what? Define a good many. Then stop pretending you are not what you are. We've seen your disgusting racists posts.

I can speak of just Georgia in the 1960s and Western States then as well.
Mom first told me of Jim Crow laws around 1957 since they were not in CA at the time. When I was drafted in 1962, I saw evidence of them in Georgia.
Definitely Southerners lost the war.
A good many blacks are republicans. You have not seen my racist posts. Merely discussing race does not make a person a racist or you would be one and bragging as well.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I can speak of just Georgia in the 1960s and Western States then as well.
Mom first told me of Jim Crow laws around 1957 since they were not in CA at the time. When I was drafted in 1962, I saw evidence of them in Georgia.
Definitely Southerners lost the war.
A good many blacks are republicans. You have not seen my racist posts. Merely discussing race does not make a person a racist or you would be one and bragging as well.

disagree

And define "good many" please

note:
Lee Atwater: “My generation will be the first generation of Southerners that won’t be prejudiced.”

Admitting that he believes the people down south are prejudiced fucks.

 

[Robert W]

disagree

And define "good many" please

note:
Lee Atwater: “My generation will be the first generation of Southerners that won’t be prejudiced.”

Admitting that he believes the people down south are prejudiced fucks.

Prejudice swings it's tongue both ways.

If you are trying not to sound racist, erase your words. Good many means that.
I saw Racism I told you when I was based at Ft. Benning. Blacks I was riding with told me would not go into town because we would be beaten up. Try to dream up some reasons why you think I am racist. I graduated high school and did not know them. There were very few blacks at the school. They did not take college prep courses.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Prejudice swings it's tongue both ways.

If you are trying not to sound racist, erase your words. Good many means that.
I saw Racism I told you when I was based at Ft. Benning. Blacks I was riding with told me would not go into town because we would be beaten up. Try to dream up some reasons why you think I am racist. I graduated high school and did not know them. There were very few blacks at the school. They did not take college prep courses.

Why would I try to not sound racist? I that what we see you doing when you comment on race? You fear speaking your mind because it might look racist?

 

[BackAgain]

And since it's inception (the US Constitution), people including the framers themselves, could not agree on that.

False. They sure could and they did. The only variation was when something seemingly conflicted. For example, if one right bumped up against another right. Or if some provision seemed to require some interpretation.

The rest of your comment where you go on acting as if you're hosting a Talk Show where the host speaks nonstop nonsense -- think Rush/Sean et al... --- on just about anything and everything?

False analysis ^ again from the dainty. How insipid of him.

Well, let's just let that sink in.

Why? You’re babbling dishonestly and incoherently.

And insinuating and worse, believing that segregation ceases to exist without Jim Crow laws?

Quote me as having ever said any such thing. But you won’t. Because you make up your lies as you go along.

That's a despicable argument and belief. There segregation of races before Jim Crow laws, and after the dismantling of most all Jim Crow laws. These facts are undeniable to even the most avowed racists. It's actually what most racists demand.

Zzz. Your false claims don’t put anything you say in a stronger position. As always, you’re practically self-refuting.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

False. They sure could and they did. The only variation was when something seemingly conflicted.

Good gawd...

The US Constitution is full of agreements to compromise. Add to that the conversations over what the meanings of words are and who to look to for the meanings?

Madison himself wrote in letters that anyone looking for the 'original intent' or meanings' in the document should look to what the 'people' who ratified the document thought they were ratifying, not to look to the framers like himself for meanings -- as the ultimate authority lay in what the 'people' understood the words and the document to say.

And people were arguing over this from day 1.

You really should read something like Rakove's Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Some people would have decisions made by feelings rather than by agreed upon legal constraints.

Some people, being people on many sides of the ideological and political spectrums?

 

[Robert W]

Why would I try to not sound racist? I that what we see you doing when you comment on race? You fear speaking your mind because it might look racist?

That reads as if you are a racist. WE is whom? No, I speak frankly. No need to be racist.

 

[Robert W]

Good gawd...

The US Constitution is full of agreements to compromise. Add to that the conversations over what the meanings of words are and who to look to for the meanings?

Madison himself wrote in letters that anyone looking for the 'original intent' or meanings' in the document should look to what the 'people' who ratified the document thought they were ratifying, not to look to the framers like himself for meanings -- as the ultimate authority lay in what the 'people' understood the words and the document to say.

And people were arguing over this from day 1.

You really should read something like Rakove's Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

I have that book. Rakove's Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some people, being people on many sides of the ideological and political spectrums?

Those with an agenda to serve above established law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Those with an agenda to serve above established law.

"serve above established law?"

 

[there4eyeM]

"serve above established law?"

Would you prefer "beyond"?

 

[IM2]

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Why do some whites say this crap?

 

[IM2]

Fake News.

My position is that separate but equal is not unconstitutional.

Separate but unequal WOULD violate the 14th amendment...but separate but equal would not.

That's not an opinion...that is a fact.

Prove me wrong directly from the Constitution or STFU.

Separate was unequal. Black schools were underfunded, black communities did not have the same things white communities had. So the 14th Amendment was violated.