John Lewis dead

[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?

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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I was shocked to. Maybe he can think out of the box haha

 

[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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

 

[beagle9]

Was watching a show on fox news where the three talking were comprised of a host and two guest, and the topic was about the police, and the worry about recruitment now, and sucide, and early retirement or the blue flu. One guy addressed that part very well (no viable solutions though), and then it went to the situation in Chicago, where gun crime's or murder is up amongst the communities by leaps and bounds (black on black crime). So it was said "how can there be a BLM if within these inner cities black on black crime is off the chain" ???

Then it went to well many blacks are still scared of the police, so they don't trust the police because they just stop a black person, and they just drag them out of their car, and ask them how does a black person own a vehicle like this ??? Could be true, but it still doesn't mean that all cop's do these things, otherwise like this BLM would have these cowering officials thinking that they do, so defund the police, and do away with important crime fighting tools, and destroy morale amongst the force on a broad scale.

How stupid is this bullcrap, but here we are.

Sounds like BLM if truly believed in their cause, would be looking within the black community, and taking a stand against blacks who truly think that Black lives don't matter, and take a stand against those who break the law so much, and act up so much, that it causes bad or ignorant cop's to ask innocent blacks "how did they afford this car" ??? So is this truly a BLM movement or are we seeing a war against white folks being run by BLM under the guise that it is a BLM movement ????? You know folks, the so called movement that just wants to bring awareness to the black struggles about or against the injustices going on, whether it is bringing attention to certain cop's being against Black's, and the issue of Black's being against Black's or the wealthy using Black's in a bad way, and the abortion of million's of Black's by Black's, so which is it already ?????? Is it a war against white folks or a true movement for dealing with the issue's that should be saying that "All Black lives MATTER", whether they are abused by bad cop's or bad players in life be it black or white or being aborted. So is the movement consistent ???

Put this here because John Lewis would have wanted it here or would he ?? I hope that he would have wanted this here.

 

[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?

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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

 

[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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.

 

[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?

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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.

1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.


2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.

 

[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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.

1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.


2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.

I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.

 

[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?

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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.

1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.


2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.

I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.

Agreed.


But the point is, that widespread racist discrimination is accepted in our society today.

That is a valid issue. A big one. It hurts a lot of people.


THis should NOT be accepted. It should be ended asap.

 

[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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.

1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.


2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.

I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.

Agreed.


But the point is, that widespread racist discrimination is accepted in our society today.

That is a valid issue. A big one. It hurts a lot of people.


THis should NOT be accepted. It should be ended asap.

I agree. College admissions should be based solely on the achievements of the student.

 

[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?

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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.

1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.


2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.

I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.

Agreed.


But the point is, that widespread racist discrimination is accepted in our society today.

That is a valid issue. A big one. It hurts a lot of people.


THis should NOT be accepted. It should be ended asap.

I agree. College admissions should be based solely on the achievements of the student.

That is a good place to start.

 

[katsteve2012]

Black people were being hosed by the fire department, getting eaten by dogs and beaten down by rabid pigs for protesting peacefully for the basic rights of citizenship.

Are you this dense? Uneducated? All protest even the anti war ppl had dogs and fire hoses, you race baiting ahole.. and they worked. They should be used again. That’s how protest that got violent were broken up. As they should

During protests that were peaceful, the same tactics with water hoses, police dogs and rabid cops were used, you brain dead, race baiting troll.

There are an abundance of videos on YouTube and many articles online verifying that fact,

Look them up, as opposed to making up lie after lie.

I do believe that the protest were mostly peaceful back then, just as they are now when they start out, but back then just as we have now, their are the instigators who start the violence in hopes to get it done in that way. The peaceful protestor's then get caught in the cross fire between the cops and the trouble makers.

I agree that outside agitators have shown up at otherwise peaceful demonstrations and derailed the peace. The point that I intended to make is the subject of this thread was known for discouraging violence, and some of the violence inflicted on him and other peaceful protesters was undeserved.

 

[katsteve2012]

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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.

1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.


2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.

I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.

Agreed.


But the point is, that widespread racist discrimination is accepted in our society today.

That is a valid issue. A big one. It hurts a lot of people.


THis should NOT be accepted. It should be ended asap.

I agree. College admissions should be based solely on the achievements of the student.

And should also require eliminating all preferences given to legacies, children of donors, and children of faculty and staff.

These groups together comprise one-third of each class in some elite colleges and are admitted at eight times the rate of other applicants no matter what their test scores are, and those who are receiving such preferential treatment are typically not black or part of any other "minority group".

That change would make a far bigger difference than "regulating" the rate of black students being admitted, because as it stands currently, blacks are not displacing white students in college admissions on a widespread scale.

There are some who just believe that typically the success of any black person must have been at the expense of a more qualified white person, when it is actually the more privileged being favored over the less privileged on a far broader scale.

 

[beagle9]

Black people were being hosed by the fire department, getting eaten by dogs and beaten down by rabid pigs for protesting peacefully for the basic rights of citizenship.

Are you this dense? Uneducated? All protest even the anti war ppl had dogs and fire hoses, you race baiting ahole.. and they worked. They should be used again. That’s how protest that got violent were broken up. As they should

During protests that were peaceful, the same tactics with water hoses, police dogs and rabid cops were used, you brain dead, race baiting troll.

There are an abundance of videos on YouTube and many articles online verifying that fact,

Look them up, as opposed to making up lie after lie.

I do believe that the protest were mostly peaceful back then, just as they are now when they start out, but back then just as we have now, their are the instigators who start the violence in hopes to get it done in that way. The peaceful protestor's then get caught in the cross fire between the cops and the trouble makers.

I agree that outside agitators have shown up at otherwise peaceful demonstrations and derailed the peace. The point that I intended to make is the subject of this thread was known for discouraging violence, and some of the violence inflicted on him and other peaceful protesters was undeserved.

Yes, getting caught in the crossfire is hell. Agree.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.

1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.


2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.

I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.

Agreed.


But the point is, that widespread racist discrimination is accepted in our society today.

That is a valid issue. A big one. It hurts a lot of people.


THis should NOT be accepted. It should be ended asap.

I agree. College admissions should be based solely on the achievements of the student.

And should also require eliminating all preferences given to legacies, children of donors, and children of faculty and staff.

These groups together comprise one-third of each class in some elite colleges and are admitted at eight times the rate of other applicants no matter what their test scores are, and those who are receiving such preferential treatment are typically not black or part of any other "minority group".

That change would make a far bigger difference than "regulating" the rate of black students being admitted, because as it stands currently, blacks are not displacing white students in college admissions on a widespread scale.

There are some who just believe that typically the success of any black person must have been at the expense of a more qualified white person, when it is actually the more privileged being favored over the less privileged on a far broader scale.

The exaggerated one-sided focus here on “admissions” to colleges is itself a product of the “white backlash” to today’s legally limited and restricted “affirmative action” programs. It is hardly merely “legacy admissions” to certain top universities that makes for a lack of “equal opportunity” in higher education, or in society as a whole.

It is a lack of money resources, historical racism, and cultural and political factors too, that created and sustain our racially divided society. The reality of impoverished communities, drug and crime problems, is today experienced in white communities too, and not just in rural areas, but for obvious historical reasons black city ghettos have suffered these problems the worst, and for generations.

Anybody with money can get a good university education, anybody with good connections and a rich family will have many opportunities that poor folks, black or white, will not have.

African-Americans are better educated today than ever before, have worked hard and made their way widely into sports and music, and now they enter more working-class service and professional jobs than ever. But with de-industrialization they have lost many once good paying unionized job opportunities, as have poor working-class whites.

Despite the victories over Jim Crow made by the generation of MLK and John Lewis, the “color line” that DuBois pointed out as being fundamental in the 20th century remains a profound problem for American society even today. African Americans are still on average far behind white Americans in wealth and education, and so lack all the advantages they bring. They still in most cases, as individuals, lack “equal opportunity.” At the same time black lumpenized elements still commit far too many crimes (mostly against their neighbors), and get jailed far more frequently.

Privileged elites in society, still disproportionately white, exploit every legal loophole to rip off society as a whole. Politically, African Americans face a new backlash of stupendous proportions — Trump has encouraged the expression of, and built upon, a new wave of “white grievance” and barely disguised racism. He has used serious problems like crime (far lower than in the period between 1970-1990), and illegal immigration, to gin up his base.

African-Americans have succeeded in taking advantage of their new opportunities in many areas. I worked in NYC in the subway & bus system for 26 years, which went from an Irish-American controlled industry and union to a majority black and Hispanic industry in a single generation. There were no “affirmative action” quotas, but only strict civil service exams that allowed employment at entry-level jobs.

As a college-educated person I easily scored at the very top of the test. I became a conductor and then motorman and then yard working engineer qualified on diesels and electric trains. Few whites took those tests. The same for sanitation jobs and many other “blue collar,” or dirty and seemingly poorly paid jobs requiring years of work at night, weekends, holidays. Some of my white friends decades later regretted their own career path taking “white collar” jobs that disappeared. Many to this day still mistakenly think “Affirmative Action” was the reason steady city and blue collar jobs became so integrated, and finally majority black and Hispanic. My experience, working with African American workers and often under black supervisors is perhaps not typical, but I wanted to at least mention it.

There is probably not a single African-American subway worker I knew who would not be deeply offended by many of the backward criticisms printed here on this thread. They, like I, knew all about black crime, broken families, the dangers of lumpen culture, the need for a good education. They mostly lived in the city or nearby, raised families there, and they and their kids still try to keep the young people out of trouble. They deeply respect people like John Lewis and MLK, and remember their sacrifices.

 

[Jitss617]

African-Americans are better educated today than ever before, have worked hard and made their way widely into sports and music, and now they enter more working-class service and professional jobs than ever. But with de-industrialization they have lost many once good paying unionized job opportunities, as have poor working-class whites.

Baltimore students can’t pass a basic test after pumping billions into the public school system .. you can’t be this out of touch with reality.. back in the day blacks had schools that were scoring just as high as whites. You’re Incredibly ignorant to facts

 

[Papageorgio]

People actually live in the blue states!!! Cows and pigs live in red states!!!

What an ignorant, hateful, bigoted statement.

 

[Jitss617]

Lol I love how now republicans showed up for that turd haha

 

[basquebromance]

even libertarians love him!

John Lewis, Hero of Liberty

On this Martin Luther King Jr. Day, throw a little love to all those in the Civil Rights Movement who gave their minds, gave their bodies, and sacrificed for the cause of freedom.

www.cato.org

 

[basquebromance]

"Joe Biden should announce that the first bill he’ll introduce as President is the John Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2021, a law that would guarantee every American the right to vote and the right to equal representation. " - Kamala Harris

 

[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?

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.

I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.

You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?

I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.

I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.

YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?

A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.

1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.


2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.

I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.

Agreed.


But the point is, that widespread racist discrimination is accepted in our society today.

That is a valid issue. A big one. It hurts a lot of people.


THis should NOT be accepted. It should be ended asap.

I agree. College admissions should be based solely on the achievements of the student.

And should also require eliminating all preferences given to legacies, children of donors, and children of faculty and staff.

Why do you imagine these need to be connected?

These groups together comprise one-third of each class in some elite colleges and are admitted at eight times the rate of other applicants no matter what their test scores are, and those who are receiving such preferential treatment are typically not black or part of any other "minority group".

Interesting claims. Would you like to support these claims now?

That change would make a far bigger difference than "regulating" the rate of black students being admitted, because as it stands currently, blacks are not displacing white students in college admissions on a widespread scale.

The anti-white discrimination is well documented. Blacks are obviously displacing white students. Not sure what you are basing your flat, unsupported denial of the facts on.

There are some who just believe that typically the success of any black person must have been at the expense of a more qualified white person, when it is actually the more privileged being favored over the less privileged on a far broader scale.

your support for anti-white discrimination is noted. YOur justification for it, dismissed.