John Lewis dead

[boedicca]

Lewis was a Civil Rights follower, never a leader that sold out the Black people to the Democrat Plantation owners.

The Two Faces of John Lewis, No Longer a Hero but a Mouthpiece for White Supremacy…

I know this story will not sit well with many people, especially African Americans who live for a hero and are too mentally enslaved to see…

medium.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Wayne Dupree

Wayne Dupree political stories

www.waynedupree.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

watcherofweasels.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

What has John Lewis ever done for his constituents?

The MSM says,"Rep. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia is a civil-rights icon". What has he ever done for his constituents? I don't know...

www.glocktalk.com

John Lewis was a fine man of morality, courage, and conviction. In other words, the opposite of your cult leader...

His past involvement with the civil rights movement doesn't give him a lifetime pass. He soiled himself with with lying about others, notably his claiming that peaceful tea-party members called him the N-work, accusing McCain and Palin of racism, promoting that false Russian Collusion made Trump's presidency illegitimate... He ended up being a divisive hack, and it was all his own doing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

How is anyone supposed to take it seriously that he was a “civil rights” leader in his final years? Maybe in the 1960’s. But decades of being a Democrat stooge, pushing Democrat inner city polices that failed over and over again. Blacks in inner cities are no better off now than they were in the 1970’s, especially now with Dems drawing back police, allowing the thugs to rule the neighborhoods again. All Democrats and Americans should be ashamed for supporting these policies that keep blacks down as at the bottom rung of society. Blacks have broken families, single mothers on welfare, highest amounts of drop outs, drug users, homosexuality and HIV rates, and highest violent crime rates.

The great John Lewis is guilty of perpetuating all those factors, and here the left are treating him like a hero, as if he was a better man than George Washington.

He is a hero. And he is a hero for battling racists like you.

 

[Jitss617]

Lewis was a Civil Rights follower, never a leader that sold out the Black people to the Democrat Plantation owners.

The Two Faces of John Lewis, No Longer a Hero but a Mouthpiece for White Supremacy…

I know this story will not sit well with many people, especially African Americans who live for a hero and are too mentally enslaved to see…

medium.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Wayne Dupree

Wayne Dupree political stories

www.waynedupree.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

watcherofweasels.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

What has John Lewis ever done for his constituents?

The MSM says,"Rep. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia is a civil-rights icon". What has he ever done for his constituents? I don't know...

www.glocktalk.com

John Lewis was a fine man of morality, courage, and conviction. In other words, the opposite of your cult leader...

His past involvement with the civil rights movement doesn't give him a lifetime pass. He soiled himself with with lying about others, notably his claiming that peaceful tea-party members called him the N-work, accusing McCain and Palin of racism, promoting that false Russian Collusion made Trump's presidency illegitimate... He ended up being a divisive hack, and it was all his own doing.

Clear example of SEGREGATION! That winter born claims was over in 1964 lol

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

past involvement with the civil rights movement doesn't give him a lifetime pass.

Spare us your dogwhistle horseshit. You are a trump cultist. Your bar is so low that criticism of anyone other than mentally ill criminals who molest goats from you is laughable.

You dumb fucks see a brown man and immediately start tripping over each other to find reasons to criticize him. As anyone can see for themselves.

 

[Jitss617]

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.

How is anyone supposed to take it seriously that he was a “civil rights” leader in his final years? Maybe in the 1960’s. But decades of being a Democrat stooge, pushing Democrat inner city polices that failed over and over again. Blacks in inner cities are no better off now than they were in the 1970’s, especially now with Dems drawing back police, allowing the thugs to rule the neighborhoods again. All Democrats and Americans should be ashamed for supporting these policies that keep blacks down as at the bottom rung of society. Blacks have broken families, single mothers on welfare, highest amounts of drop outs, drug users, homosexuality and HIV rates, and highest violent crime rates.

The great John Lewis is guilty of perpetuating all those factors, and here the left are treating him like a hero, as if he was a better man than George Washington.

He is a hero. And he is a hero for battling racists like you.

Your ignore racism,, makes you the racist

 

[boedicca]

past involvement with the civil rights movement doesn't give him a lifetime pass.

Spare us your dogwhistle horseshit. You are a trump cultist. Your bar is so low that criticism of anyone other than mentally ill criminals who molest goats from you is laughable.

You dumb fucks see a brown man and immediately start tripping over each other to find reasons to criticize him. As anyone can see for themselves.

Oh blah blah blah so sleepy......zzzzzzzzz

Nobody cares about your fake accusations of WACISM except for your non-binary Wokester comrades.

 

[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.

Cool story, I deal with reality

No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.

Bullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964

Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.

And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.

How about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomed

That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.

I know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issue

The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.

Im explained my definition.. and it’s facts

Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.

Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.

How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.

In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.

The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.

No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.

If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.


And you support that racist policy.

I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?

 

[WinterBorn]

Lewis was a Civil Rights follower, never a leader that sold out the Black people to the Democrat Plantation owners.

The Two Faces of John Lewis, No Longer a Hero but a Mouthpiece for White Supremacy…

I know this story will not sit well with many people, especially African Americans who live for a hero and are too mentally enslaved to see…

medium.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Wayne Dupree

Wayne Dupree political stories

www.waynedupree.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

watcherofweasels.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

What has John Lewis ever done for his constituents?

The MSM says,"Rep. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia is a civil-rights icon". What has he ever done for his constituents? I don't know...

www.glocktalk.com

John Lewis was a fine man of morality, courage, and conviction. In other words, the opposite of your cult leader...

His past involvement with the civil rights movement doesn't give him a lifetime pass. He soiled himself with with lying about others, notably his claiming that peaceful tea-party members called him the N-work, accusing McCain and Palin of racism, promoting that false Russian Collusion made Trump's presidency illegitimate... He ended up being a divisive hack, and it was all his own doing.

Clear example of SEGREGATION! That winter born claims was over in 1964 lol

Please point out where I said segregation was over in 1964. I would say I would wait, but we both know you can't do 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

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

No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.

Bullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964

Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.

And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.

How about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomed

That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.

I know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issue

The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.

Im explained my definition.. and it’s facts

Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.

Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.

How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.

In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.

The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.

No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.

If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.


And you support that racist policy.

I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?

Of course things are worse now

 

[Jitss617]

Lewis was a Civil Rights follower, never a leader that sold out the Black people to the Democrat Plantation owners.

The Two Faces of John Lewis, No Longer a Hero but a Mouthpiece for White Supremacy…

I know this story will not sit well with many people, especially African Americans who live for a hero and are too mentally enslaved to see…

medium.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Wayne Dupree

Wayne Dupree political stories

www.waynedupree.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

watcherofweasels.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

What has John Lewis ever done for his constituents?

The MSM says,"Rep. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia is a civil-rights icon". What has he ever done for his constituents? I don't know...

www.glocktalk.com

John Lewis was a fine man of morality, courage, and conviction. In other words, the opposite of your cult leader...

His past involvement with the civil rights movement doesn't give him a lifetime pass. He soiled himself with with lying about others, notably his claiming that peaceful tea-party members called him the N-work, accusing McCain and Palin of racism, promoting that false Russian Collusion made Trump's presidency illegitimate... He ended up being a divisive hack, and it was all his own doing.

Clear example of SEGREGATION! That winter born claims was over in 1964 lol

Please point out where I said segregation was over in 1964. I would say I would wait, but we both know you can't do it.

Ok so you admit Lewis was part of the problem

 

[Correll]

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

No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.

Bullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964

Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.

And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.

How about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomed

That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.

I know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issue

The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.

Im explained my definition.. and it’s facts

Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.

Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.

How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.

In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.

The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.

No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.

If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.


And you support that racist policy.

I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?

i would say that admitting blacks "at a favorable rate" means discriminating against whites today.

Worse? MMm, The big difference, imo, is that in 1964, the political tide was moving against such racist discrimination, so that was a better time,


than TODAY, when all signs point to the political tide leading to ever greater and harsher racist discrimination and less and less change of ever having any chance of redress though legal or political means.


SO, do you support such racist discrimination today?

 

[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

No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.

Bullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964

Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.

And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.

How about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomed

That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.

I know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issue

The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.

Im explained my definition.. and it’s facts

Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.

Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.

How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.

In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.

The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.

No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.

If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.


And you support that racist policy.

I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?

i would say that admitting blacks "at a favorable rate" means discriminating against whites today.

Worse? MMm, The big difference, imo, is that in 1964, the political tide was moving against such racist discrimination, so that was a better time,


than TODAY, when all signs point to the political tide leading to ever greater and harsher racist discrimination and less and less change of ever having any chance of redress though legal or political means.


SO, do you support such racist discrimination today?

Officer Roseland Aka winterborn, doesn’t care about the struggling blacks today

 

[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.

Cool story, I deal with reality

No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.

Bullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964

Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.

And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.

How about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomed

That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.

I know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issue

The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.

Im explained my definition.. and it’s facts

Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.

Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.

How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.

In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.

The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.

No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.

If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.


And you support that racist policy.

I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?

Of course things are worse now

So you say. I listed numerous reasons they are better. You just talk about ghettos.

 

[WinterBorn]

Lewis was a Civil Rights follower, never a leader that sold out the Black people to the Democrat Plantation owners.

The Two Faces of John Lewis, No Longer a Hero but a Mouthpiece for White Supremacy…

I know this story will not sit well with many people, especially African Americans who live for a hero and are too mentally enslaved to see…

medium.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Wayne Dupree

Wayne Dupree political stories

www.waynedupree.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

watcherofweasels.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

What has John Lewis ever done for his constituents?

The MSM says,"Rep. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia is a civil-rights icon". What has he ever done for his constituents? I don't know...

www.glocktalk.com

John Lewis was a fine man of morality, courage, and conviction. In other words, the opposite of your cult leader...

His past involvement with the civil rights movement doesn't give him a lifetime pass. He soiled himself with with lying about others, notably his claiming that peaceful tea-party members called him the N-work, accusing McCain and Palin of racism, promoting that false Russian Collusion made Trump's presidency illegitimate... He ended up being a divisive hack, and it was all his own doing.

Clear example of SEGREGATION! That winter born claims was over in 1964 lol

Please point out where I said segregation was over in 1964. I would say I would wait, but we both know you can't do it.

Ok so you admit Lewis was part of the problem

Once again you lie about what I said. You get caught every time, and yet you continue.

Did you find a post where I said segregation was over in 1964?

 

[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.

Cool story, I deal with reality

No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.

Bullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964

Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.

And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.

How about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomed

That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.

I know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issue

The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.

Im explained my definition.. and it’s facts

Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.

Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.

How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.

In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.

The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.

No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.

If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.


And you support that racist policy.

I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?

i would say that admitting blacks "at a favorable rate" means discriminating against whites today.

Worse? MMm, The big difference, imo, is that in 1964, the political tide was moving against such racist discrimination, so that was a better time,


than TODAY, when all signs point to the political tide leading to ever greater and harsher racist discrimination and less and less change of ever having any chance of redress though legal or political means.


SO, do you support such racist discrimination today?

Officer Roseland Aka winterborn, doesn’t care about the struggling blacks today

LMAO!! You just make shit up when you want, don't you?

 

[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.

Cool story, I deal with reality

No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.

Bullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964

Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.

And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.

How about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomed

That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.

I know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issue

The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.

Im explained my definition.. and it’s facts

Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.

Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.

How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.

In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.

The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.

No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.

If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.


And you support that racist policy.

I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?

i would say that admitting blacks "at a favorable rate" means discriminating against whites today.

Worse? MMm, The big difference, imo, is that in 1964, the political tide was moving against such racist discrimination, so that was a better time,


than TODAY, when all signs point to the political tide leading to ever greater and harsher racist discrimination and less and less change of ever having any chance of redress though legal or political means.


SO, do you support such racist discrimination today?

I don't believe in having race be any part of college admissions. If someone wants to start a private scholarship fund to help blacks, that is different. But the standard admissions and the standard financial aid you not be based on race at all.

 

[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

No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.

Bullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964

Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.

And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.

How about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomed

That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.

I know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issue

The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.

Im explained my definition.. and it’s facts

Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.

Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.

How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.

In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.

The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.

No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.

If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.


And you support that racist policy.

I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?

Of course things are worse now

So you say. I listed numerous reasons they are better. You just talk about ghettos.

They are better why? They don’t have signs that read no blacks allowed? Have you listened to anything we have poster here today lol

 

[Jitss617]

Lewis was a Civil Rights follower, never a leader that sold out the Black people to the Democrat Plantation owners.

The Two Faces of John Lewis, No Longer a Hero but a Mouthpiece for White Supremacy…

I know this story will not sit well with many people, especially African Americans who live for a hero and are too mentally enslaved to see…

medium.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Wayne Dupree

Wayne Dupree political stories

www.waynedupree.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

watcherofweasels.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

What has John Lewis ever done for his constituents?

The MSM says,"Rep. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia is a civil-rights icon". What has he ever done for his constituents? I don't know...

www.glocktalk.com

John Lewis was a fine man of morality, courage, and conviction. In other words, the opposite of your cult leader...

His past involvement with the civil rights movement doesn't give him a lifetime pass. He soiled himself with with lying about others, notably his claiming that peaceful tea-party members called him the N-work, accusing McCain and Palin of racism, promoting that false Russian Collusion made Trump's presidency illegitimate... He ended up being a divisive hack, and it was all his own doing.

Clear example of SEGREGATION! That winter born claims was over in 1964 lol

Please point out where I said segregation was over in 1964. I would say I would wait, but we both know you can't do it.

Ok so you admit Lewis was part of the problem

Once again you lie about what I said. You get caught every time, and yet you continue.

Did you find a post where I said segregation was over in 1964?

Is Luis part of the problem yes or no?

 

[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

No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.

Bullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964

Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.

And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.

How about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomed

That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.

I know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issue

The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.

Im explained my definition.. and it’s facts

Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.

Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.

How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.

In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.

The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.

No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.

If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.


And you support that racist policy.

I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?

i would say that admitting blacks "at a favorable rate" means discriminating against whites today.

Worse? MMm, The big difference, imo, is that in 1964, the political tide was moving against such racist discrimination, so that was a better time,


than TODAY, when all signs point to the political tide leading to ever greater and harsher racist discrimination and less and less change of ever having any chance of redress though legal or political means.


SO, do you support such racist discrimination today?

Officer Roseland Aka winterborn, doesn’t care about the struggling blacks today

LMAO!! You just make shit up when you want, don't you?

Did you praise this guy? Pretty sure you did.

 

[boedicca]

Lewis was a Civil Rights follower, never a leader that sold out the Black people to the Democrat Plantation owners.

The Two Faces of John Lewis, No Longer a Hero but a Mouthpiece for White Supremacy…

I know this story will not sit well with many people, especially African Americans who live for a hero and are too mentally enslaved to see…

medium.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

Wayne Dupree

Wayne Dupree political stories

www.waynedupree.com

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

watcherofweasels.org

XXXXXXXXXXXX​

What has John Lewis ever done for his constituents?

The MSM says,"Rep. John Lewis, a Democratic congressman from Georgia is a civil-rights icon". What has he ever done for his constituents? I don't know...

www.glocktalk.com

John Lewis was a fine man of morality, courage, and conviction. In other words, the opposite of your cult leader...

His past involvement with the civil rights movement doesn't give him a lifetime pass. He soiled himself with with lying about others, notably his claiming that peaceful tea-party members called him the N-work, accusing McCain and Palin of racism, promoting that false Russian Collusion made Trump's presidency illegitimate... He ended up being a divisive hack, and it was all his own doing.

Clear example of SEGREGATION! That winter born claims was over in 1964 lol

Please point out where I said segregation was over in 1964. I would say I would wait, but we both know you can't do it.

Ok so you admit Lewis was part of the problem

Once again you lie about what I said. You get caught every time, and yet you continue.

Did you find a post where I said segregation was over in 1964?

Is Luis part of the problem yes or no?

Not anymore.

Just sayin'.