John Lewis dead

[Lysistrata]

Its funny, so many conservatives are quick to point out that republicans were the ones who worked for civil rights first. And when one of those on the front lines of the civil rights movement in the early days, dies, the vitriol and hate comes spewing. John Lewis was beaten down during the first Selma March, known as Bloody Sunday. He bore the scars from that the rest of his life. But he kept going.

In 1961, Lewis was one of the original Freedom Riders. They were seven whites and six blacks who rode a bus from Washington to New Orleans. Their crime? They had the audacity to sit next to each other. Mobs met the bus and there was violence against the riders. The SCOTUS had ruled that forced segregation on interstate buses was unconstitutional in 1960. A year later the Freedom Fighters were not only attacked and beaten, they were arrested for violating Jim Crow laws, which had been declared unconstitutional. And still he came back.

And he never returned the violence. He never looted, burned or destroyed property. He was a strong advocate for peaceful protest.

All he wanted was change for his people. And he stood up when so many refused to get beaten, hosed, attacked by dogs ect. John Lewis refused to quit.

He was ostracized by other members of the civil rights movement when he refused to give up his peaceful protest and respond with violence.

R.I.P. John Lewis. You earned your rest. But we will miss your voice of reason.

We will?

Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket or something?

"We", as in the people who want peaceful protests instead of violence.

What did Lewis do, over the last say, 40 years, to push back against the wace baiting that has led to the violent race riots we see today?

Anything? Or we he part of the wace baiting?

When have we not seen violent race riots. Rosewood, Florida. Tulsa, Oklahoma. This crap has got to stop right here and now. Today, in 2020, we are not seeing "violent race riots." These "violent race riots" seem to be something ginned up on the internet. Psst: I live in northern Virginia. There is nothing going on but people of all backgrounds living peacefully together. No riots. No crime. Just peaceful citizens speaking whatever languages they wish and being friendly to their neighbors. English is spoken here. So is Spanish, Korean, Chinese dialects, French, Urdu. Arabic, Hebrew, and more.

Stop digging at John Lewis. A gentleman who lived with honor and died that way. He rests with angels.

The dead people killed by mobs in the street might disagree with you on that. Well, except they are dead and thus can't talk.


Your denial of what is plain to see, is obviously support for those violent race riots.

Who has been in the street killed by a mob? In what city and when? Name someone killed.

 

[WinterBorn]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

 

[Correll]

Its funny, so many conservatives are quick to point out that republicans were the ones who worked for civil rights first. And when one of those on the front lines of the civil rights movement in the early days, dies, the vitriol and hate comes spewing. John Lewis was beaten down during the first Selma March, known as Bloody Sunday. He bore the scars from that the rest of his life. But he kept going.

In 1961, Lewis was one of the original Freedom Riders. They were seven whites and six blacks who rode a bus from Washington to New Orleans. Their crime? They had the audacity to sit next to each other. Mobs met the bus and there was violence against the riders. The SCOTUS had ruled that forced segregation on interstate buses was unconstitutional in 1960. A year later the Freedom Fighters were not only attacked and beaten, they were arrested for violating Jim Crow laws, which had been declared unconstitutional. And still he came back.

And he never returned the violence. He never looted, burned or destroyed property. He was a strong advocate for peaceful protest.

All he wanted was change for his people. And he stood up when so many refused to get beaten, hosed, attacked by dogs ect. John Lewis refused to quit.

He was ostracized by other members of the civil rights movement when he refused to give up his peaceful protest and respond with violence.

R.I.P. John Lewis. You earned your rest. But we will miss your voice of reason.

We will?

Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket or something?

"We", as in the people who want peaceful protests instead of violence.

What did Lewis do, over the last say, 40 years, to push back against the wace baiting that has led to the violent race riots we see today?

Anything? Or we he part of the wace baiting?

When have we not seen violent race riots. Rosewood, Florida. Tulsa, Oklahoma. This crap has got to stop right here and now. Today, in 2020, we are not seeing "violent race riots." These "violent race riots" seem to be something ginned up on the internet. Psst: I live in northern Virginia. There is nothing going on but people of all backgrounds living peacefully together. No riots. No crime. Just peaceful citizens speaking whatever languages they wish and being friendly to their neighbors. English is spoken here. So is Spanish, Korean, Chinese dialects, French, Urdu. Arabic, Hebrew, and more.

Stop digging at John Lewis. A gentleman who lived with honor and died that way. He rests with angels.

The dead people killed by mobs in the street might disagree with you on that. Well, except they are dead and thus can't talk.


Your denial of what is plain to see, is obviously support for those violent race riots.

Who has been in the street killed by a mob? In what city and when? Name someone killed.

No. Focusing on the details, such as the names of the dead, brings me down.


Especially as your denial is so stupid, as to obviously be some type of silly lefty troll boy tactics.


So, no, you want names, you go find them.

 

[Jitss617]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

 

[WinterBorn]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

 

[Jitss617]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

I’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgusting

 

[WinterBorn]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

I’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgusting

I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.

Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.

You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.

 

[Jitss617]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

I’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgusting

I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.

Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.

You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.

I’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKE

 

[basquebromance]

Edmund Pettus was a grand wizard of the KKK. Take his name off that bridge and replace it with a good man, John Lewis, the personification of the goodness of America, rather than to honor someone who disrespected individual freedoms

 

[WinterBorn]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

I’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgusting

I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.

Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.

You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.

I’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKE

Bullshit. Saying they are "new Jim Crow laws" is a dodge and you know it. If they were "new Jim Crow laws" they would be new laws forcing racial segregation. They aren't.

Just stop. You have been arguing bullshit for too many pages. Just stop. John Lewis did not support Jim Crow laws (falsely called "new" or otherwise). You are trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. But every person reading this bullshit can see that you were ignorant about it.

Just stop with the bullshit. You will never admit you are wrong, and I am fine with that. That is who you are, sadly. But stop pretending. Stop flailing around trying to defend your ignorance.

 

[Jitss617]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

I’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgusting

I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.

Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.

You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.

I’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKE

Bullshit. Saying they are "new Jim Crow laws" is a dodge and you know it. If they were "new Jim Crow laws" they would be new laws forcing racial segregation. They aren't.

Just stop. You have been arguing bullshit for too many pages. Just stop. John Lewis did not support Jim Crow laws (falsely called "new" or otherwise). You are trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. But every person reading this bullshit can see that you were ignorant about it.

Just stop with the bullshit. You will never admit you are wrong, and I am fine with that. That is who you are, sadly. But stop pretending. Stop flailing around trying to defend your ignorance.

Of course there is, new area in Boston sea port has no black owned business in a city that graduates more blacks than whites in the past 30 years. Destroying education is implementing Jim Crow Laws.. let’s keep the neighborhood segregated

 

[Flash]

This asshole Lewis was a low IQ Negro that did very little for the people that elected him and used his elected position to fill his pockets.

His biggest crime was supporting abortion that killed millions of Black children.

Then he was one of these traitorous assholes that played an active roll in the filthy scam partisan Democrat Dirty Tricks to impeach Trump.

Good riddance to a shithead.

 

[WinterBorn]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

I’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgusting

I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.

Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.

You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.

I’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKE

Bullshit. Saying they are "new Jim Crow laws" is a dodge and you know it. If they were "new Jim Crow laws" they would be new laws forcing racial segregation. They aren't.

Just stop. You have been arguing bullshit for too many pages. Just stop. John Lewis did not support Jim Crow laws (falsely called "new" or otherwise). You are trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. But every person reading this bullshit can see that you were ignorant about it.

Just stop with the bullshit. You will never admit you are wrong, and I am fine with that. That is who you are, sadly. But stop pretending. Stop flailing around trying to defend your ignorance.

Of course there is, new area in Boston sea port has no black owned business in a city that graduates more blacks than whites in the past 30 years. Destroying education is implementing Jim Crow Laws.. let’s keep the neighborhood segregated

You are like a little kid who has been corrected. "Well that is what I call it!" while stamping your feet.

If it was a new Jim Crow law (and I notice you didn't add the "new" until well into defending your error), it would be a law that forces segregation on penalty of prosecution. The fact that blacks do not own businesses in a new, trendy section of Boston is not due to Jim Crow laws. The people living in ghettos are not there because the law won't LET them move elsewhere. They are there because of poverty. Jim Crow laws concerning education were laws that did not allow integration in schools. What you have in Boston is school districts that are mostly black and poor. And the funding for most public schools come from local property taxes. Poor areas have low taxes, so there is less funding for the schools. That is NOT Jim Crow laws, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and yell "That is what I call it!!".

 

[Jitss617]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

I’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgusting

I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.

Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.

You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.

I’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKE

Bullshit. Saying they are "new Jim Crow laws" is a dodge and you know it. If they were "new Jim Crow laws" they would be new laws forcing racial segregation. They aren't.

Just stop. You have been arguing bullshit for too many pages. Just stop. John Lewis did not support Jim Crow laws (falsely called "new" or otherwise). You are trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. But every person reading this bullshit can see that you were ignorant about it.

Just stop with the bullshit. You will never admit you are wrong, and I am fine with that. That is who you are, sadly. But stop pretending. Stop flailing around trying to defend your ignorance.

Of course there is, new area in Boston sea port has no black owned business in a city that graduates more blacks than whites in the past 30 years. Destroying education is implementing Jim Crow Laws.. let’s keep the neighborhood segregated

You are like a little kid who has been corrected. "Well that is what I call it!" while stamping your feet.

If it was a new Jim Crow law (and I notice you didn't add the "new" until well into defending your error), it would be a law that forces segregation on penalty of prosecution. The fact that blacks do not own businesses in a new, trendy section of Boston is not due to Jim Crow laws. The people living in ghettos are not there because the law won't LET them move elsewhere. They are there because of poverty. Jim Crow laws concerning education were laws that did not allow integration in schools. What you have in Boston is school districts that are mostly black and poor. And the funding for most public schools come from local property taxes. Poor areas have low taxes, so there is less funding for the schools. That is NOT Jim Crow laws, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and yell "That is what I call it!!".

It is Jim Crow laws, new ones. They saw welfare, and destroying education had the same effect as have a sign in the window NO BLACKS ALLOWED.. im more advanced than you in race relations.. I’m making history. Now sit back down and enjoy the ride

 

[freyasman]

Nothing like the death of a civil rights icon to bring out the racists here.

I don't really care what color he is, I just don't like sanctimonious assholes.

I never saw anything sanctimonious about Mr. Lewis.

Well, you probably won't see any going forward either.

Enough of this, I didn't care for the guy but my dislike isn't enough to justify all this back and forth.
Bury him already and move on.

 

[WinterBorn]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

I’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgusting

I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.

Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.

You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.

I’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKE

Bullshit. Saying they are "new Jim Crow laws" is a dodge and you know it. If they were "new Jim Crow laws" they would be new laws forcing racial segregation. They aren't.

Just stop. You have been arguing bullshit for too many pages. Just stop. John Lewis did not support Jim Crow laws (falsely called "new" or otherwise). You are trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. But every person reading this bullshit can see that you were ignorant about it.

Just stop with the bullshit. You will never admit you are wrong, and I am fine with that. That is who you are, sadly. But stop pretending. Stop flailing around trying to defend your ignorance.

Of course there is, new area in Boston sea port has no black owned business in a city that graduates more blacks than whites in the past 30 years. Destroying education is implementing Jim Crow Laws.. let’s keep the neighborhood segregated

You are like a little kid who has been corrected. "Well that is what I call it!" while stamping your feet.

If it was a new Jim Crow law (and I notice you didn't add the "new" until well into defending your error), it would be a law that forces segregation on penalty of prosecution. The fact that blacks do not own businesses in a new, trendy section of Boston is not due to Jim Crow laws. The people living in ghettos are not there because the law won't LET them move elsewhere. They are there because of poverty. Jim Crow laws concerning education were laws that did not allow integration in schools. What you have in Boston is school districts that are mostly black and poor. And the funding for most public schools come from local property taxes. Poor areas have low taxes, so there is less funding for the schools. That is NOT Jim Crow laws, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and yell "That is what I call it!!".

It is Jim Crow laws, new ones. They saw welfare, and destroying education had the same effect as have a sign in the window NO BLACKS ALLOWED.. im more advanced than you in race relations.. I’m making history. Now sit back down and enjoy the ride

You are delusional. The new laws may have similar effects. But they are NOT Jim Crow laws.

As far as being more advanced in race relations, you defending and advocating lynching pretty much shoots that down. And, when you are told of a lynching in the 1980s, your first response being "Well he shouldn't have raped that white girl" shows you to be far behind the curve on race relations.

 

[Jitss617]

Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.

As always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?

Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.

And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.

Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha

Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.

But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.

If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.

No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol

The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.

I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.

At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.


Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.

Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.

I’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgusting

I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.

Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.

You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.

I’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKE

Bullshit. Saying they are "new Jim Crow laws" is a dodge and you know it. If they were "new Jim Crow laws" they would be new laws forcing racial segregation. They aren't.

Just stop. You have been arguing bullshit for too many pages. Just stop. John Lewis did not support Jim Crow laws (falsely called "new" or otherwise). You are trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. But every person reading this bullshit can see that you were ignorant about it.

Just stop with the bullshit. You will never admit you are wrong, and I am fine with that. That is who you are, sadly. But stop pretending. Stop flailing around trying to defend your ignorance.

Of course there is, new area in Boston sea port has no black owned business in a city that graduates more blacks than whites in the past 30 years. Destroying education is implementing Jim Crow Laws.. let’s keep the neighborhood segregated

You are like a little kid who has been corrected. "Well that is what I call it!" while stamping your feet.

If it was a new Jim Crow law (and I notice you didn't add the "new" until well into defending your error), it would be a law that forces segregation on penalty of prosecution. The fact that blacks do not own businesses in a new, trendy section of Boston is not due to Jim Crow laws. The people living in ghettos are not there because the law won't LET them move elsewhere. They are there because of poverty. Jim Crow laws concerning education were laws that did not allow integration in schools. What you have in Boston is school districts that are mostly black and poor. And the funding for most public schools come from local property taxes. Poor areas have low taxes, so there is less funding for the schools. That is NOT Jim Crow laws, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and yell "That is what I call it!!".

It is Jim Crow laws, new ones. They saw welfare, and destroying education had the same effect as have a sign in the window NO BLACKS ALLOWED.. im more advanced than you in race relations.. I’m making history. Now sit back down and enjoy the ride

You are delusional. The new laws may have similar effects. But they are NOT Jim Crow laws.

As far as being more advanced in race relations, you defending and advocating lynching pretty much shoots that down. And, when you are told of a lynching in the 1980s, your first response being "Well he shouldn't have raped that white girl" shows you to be far behind the curve on race relations.

Cool story, I deal with reality

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

This asshole Lewis was a low IQ Negro that ... used his elected position to fill his pockets. His biggest crime was supporting abortion that killed millions of Black children.... Good riddance to a shithead.

The racist asshole who made these obnoxious comments also proudly waves two Confederate Flags, showing once again that that flag is a screen behind which hide despicable racists. Any lie is acceptable to such elements, including accusing John Lewis of “lining his pockets” — when in fact he ended 33 years of Congressional service poorer than almost any other long-serving Congressmen, with a very modest net worth estimated at $300,000.

 

[Jitss617]

This asshole Lewis was a low IQ Negro that ... used his elected position to fill his pockets. His biggest crime was supporting abortion that killed millions of Black children.... Good riddance to a shithead.

The racist asshole who made these obnoxious comments also proudly waves two Confederate Flags, showing once again that that flag is a screen behind which hide despicable racists. Any lie is acceptable to such elements, including accusing John Lewis of “lining his pockets” — when in fact he ended 33 years of Congressional service poorer than almost any other long-serving Congressmen, with a very modest net worth estimated at $300,000.

Why are you white Democrats so uneducated about the confederacy Brazil every year celebrates confederacy day, Black men celebrate confederacy day black families celebrate confederacy.. stop your fake news. Just because kkk members who were democrats had it doesn’t make the flag racist, and you ignore all the blacks suffering in Lewis district.. you’re the racist

 

[Lysistrata]

Its funny, so many conservatives are quick to point out that republicans were the ones who worked for civil rights first. And when one of those on the front lines of the civil rights movement in the early days, dies, the vitriol and hate comes spewing. John Lewis was beaten down during the first Selma March, known as Bloody Sunday. He bore the scars from that the rest of his life. But he kept going.

In 1961, Lewis was one of the original Freedom Riders. They were seven whites and six blacks who rode a bus from Washington to New Orleans. Their crime? They had the audacity to sit next to each other. Mobs met the bus and there was violence against the riders. The SCOTUS had ruled that forced segregation on interstate buses was unconstitutional in 1960. A year later the Freedom Fighters were not only attacked and beaten, they were arrested for violating Jim Crow laws, which had been declared unconstitutional. And still he came back.

And he never returned the violence. He never looted, burned or destroyed property. He was a strong advocate for peaceful protest.

All he wanted was change for his people. And he stood up when so many refused to get beaten, hosed, attacked by dogs ect. John Lewis refused to quit.

He was ostracized by other members of the civil rights movement when he refused to give up his peaceful protest and respond with violence.

R.I.P. John Lewis. You earned your rest. But we will miss your voice of reason.

We will?

Who is "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket or something?

"We", as in the people who want peaceful protests instead of violence.

What did Lewis do, over the last say, 40 years, to push back against the wace baiting that has led to the violent race riots we see today?

Anything? Or we he part of the wace baiting?

When have we not seen violent race riots. Rosewood, Florida. Tulsa, Oklahoma. This crap has got to stop right here and now. Today, in 2020, we are not seeing "violent race riots." These "violent race riots" seem to be something ginned up on the internet. Psst: I live in northern Virginia. There is nothing going on but people of all backgrounds living peacefully together. No riots. No crime. Just peaceful citizens speaking whatever languages they wish and being friendly to their neighbors. English is spoken here. So is Spanish, Korean, Chinese dialects, French, Urdu. Arabic, Hebrew, and more.

Stop digging at John Lewis. A gentleman who lived with honor and died that way. He rests with angels.

The dead people killed by mobs in the street might disagree with you on that. Well, except they are dead and thus can't talk.


Your denial of what is plain to see, is obviously support for those violent race riots.

Who has been in the street killed by a mob? In what city and when? Name someone killed.

No. Focusing on the details, such as the names of the dead, brings me down.


Especially as your denial is so stupid, as to obviously be some type of silly lefty troll boy tactics.


So, no, you want names, you go find them.

You are the one talking about people being killed by mobs. You are the one who must provide the details or shut up. If there are violent race riots, show us where they are. Don't be a coward. Face up.