If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   Alabama to vote on segregation. This is not a repeat from the 1960's   (news.msn.com) divider line 184
    More: Strange, Alabama Education Association, state constitution, interracial marriages, attitude change, Montgomery, United States federal courts, poll taxes, class size  
•       •       •

15323 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Oct 2012 at 6:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-27 08:37:32 PM

CapeFearCadaver: whidbey: WorldCitizen: Yeah, that's why we shouldn't be voting on equal/civil rights

I guess i don't understand, given the 14th Amendment, why doing that would even be legal in this country.

NC's Amendment One: "An Act to Amend the Constitution to Provide That Marriage Between One Man and One Woman is the Only Domestic Legal Union That Shall Be Valid or Recognized in This State."

Not only was is solely for the purpose of making gay marriage HARDER, considering it was already illegal here; but the way they worded it: "the Only Domestic Legal Union That Shall Be Valid or Recognized in This State."... it leaves ALL unmarried couples, gay or straight, completely in jeopardy. Victims of DV, Health Insurance, Hospital Visitation rights, Life insurance... the list goes on. Voted by majority. (not by my county, thankfully, but still)


I understand what they did.

What I don't get is how it could possibly be Constitutional .
 
2012-10-27 08:38:41 PM

WorldCitizen: Rapmaster2000: Thank God, for Alabama. Otherwise, us Georgians would have no one to make fun of. I suppose we could make fun of North Florida, but that's really no different from Macon. It would feel hollow.

Don't worry. Indiana is fighting really hard to be the Alabama of the North. We want to make sure that even the South has someone to point at and make fun of.


As a Hoosier living in the South I... uh. I got nothing.
 
2012-10-27 08:39:37 PM
Idiots. First World countries don't make every effort possible not to have a well funded public education system. In 20 years the U.S is going to be in the same shape as Mexico thanks to idiots like these people.
 
2012-10-27 08:41:25 PM

CapeFearCadaver: ArcadianRefugee: CapeFearCadaver: Why is this being left up to voter majority?

I'd guess because Alabama law says the state's Constitution can only be altered by voter majority.

Fark: Where all of your rhetorical questions will be answered. I understand the technicality, sweetums; though WHY are civil rights issues, in particular, still being left up to a majority vote... anywhere in America? Have we really not moved past this point?

/in NC, where Amendment One was passed by majority vote


Well bless your heart.

It isn't really a civil rights issue, is it deary? It's a move to remove text that has no function; an unconstitutional law on the books remains on the books until they remove it, which doesn't magickally happen just because someone says it is unenforceable. There are an annoying set of rules set up to add and retract laws and these rules don't get to be ignored just because you really really don't like the law.

No one is voting to re-enslave blacks; they are voting to remove some words no longer have any use.
 
2012-10-27 08:41:36 PM

whidbey: I understand what they did.

What I don't get is how it could possibly be Constitutional .


Hell, neither do I. No one I know, the DV ADA included, understands one farking iota of it.
 
2012-10-27 08:43:37 PM

ArcadianRefugee: CapeFearCadaver: ArcadianRefugee: CapeFearCadaver: Why is this being left up to voter majority?

I'd guess because Alabama law says the state's Constitution can only be altered by voter majority.

Fark: Where all of your rhetorical questions will be answered. I understand the technicality, sweetums; though WHY are civil rights issues, in particular, still being left up to a majority vote... anywhere in America? Have we really not moved past this point?

/in NC, where Amendment One was passed by majority vote

Well bless your heart.

It isn't really a civil rights issue, is it deary? It's a move to remove text that has no function; an unconstitutional law on the books remains on the books until they remove it, which doesn't magickally happen just because someone says it is unenforceable. There are an annoying set of rules set up to add and retract laws and these rules don't get to be ignored just because you really really don't like the law.

No one is voting to re-enslave blacks; they are voting to remove some words no longer have any use.


You're an ass. Put down the whiskey.

I like the K in Magic... Are you a Wizard, too?
 
2012-10-27 08:45:36 PM

hasty ambush: Is ther a "right" to public education.? Yes, it is a good thing but a right like free speech or gun ownership? I don't think so.

It is a government provided service like a fire deparment or a public park but not a right.


There are parents that use this 'right' to free education as daycare and a substitute for parenting. This is where the problems start.
 
2012-10-27 08:45:44 PM
CapeFearCadaver:

As for the general "why are we still letting...", the sad fact is the things we call inalienable civil rights are really just the things we (as a nation) say are inalienable civil rights. Sucks, but....
 
2012-10-27 08:46:43 PM

CapeFearCadaver: You're an ass. Put down the whiskey.

I like the K in Magic... Are you a Wizard, too?


Huh. Kind of an angry little person, aren't you?
 
2012-10-27 08:54:57 PM
Since this thread is already politicized, I shall say:

1) Denying love in marriage is stupid-wrong. WTF is wrong with your thinking? Reschool, man.

2) To vote is THE fundamental right of an American, and for anyone to call that into question is goofy politics and obfuscation at its base. There is, was, and will never be any voter fraud on a Constitutional-level necessary in America. Look it up. And vote it down.

3) Word.
 
2012-10-27 08:57:55 PM

Indubitably: Since this thread is already politicized, I shall say:

1) Denying love in marriage is stupid-wrong. WTF is wrong with your thinking? Reschool, man.

2) To vote is THE fundamental right of an American, and for anyone to call that into question is goofy politics and obfuscation at its base. There is, was, and will never be any voter fraud on a Constitutional-level necessary in America. Look it up. And vote it down.

3) Word.


P.S. To vote is a right and to marry should be...*eye-scratch*
 
2012-10-27 09:02:17 PM

kitsuneymg: GAT_00: doyner: Alabama has the most ridiculous, long, and wordy state constitution in the US.

I think it's actually the longest in the world.

It is.

At 340,136 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world. (The English translation of the Constitution of India, the longest national constitution, is about 117,369 words long, a third of the length.)

About 90 percent of the document's length, as of 2012, comes from its 856 amendments. About 70 percent of the amendments cover only a single county or city, and some deal with salaries of specific officials (e.g. Amendment 480 and the Greene County probate judge). This gives Alabama a large number of constitutional officers.

Most of that document could burn and I wouldn't weep. There are all sorts of idiotic bits that need to be undone, but it takes too many votes to get anything to happen. As much derp as there is on the national scene, it's worse locally. I wouldn't trust a single member of our government with a pair of safety scissors.


Also. If you think Alabama is "dumb", please look up Huntsville and Redstone Arsenal. Basically, it's probably the highest educated city in the US. Silicon Valley might give us a run for the money, but the rest of the US is easily "dumber" than HSV.


Ahh, Alabama, where enshrining idiocy in the state Constitution is to be preferred to enshrining it in the state statutes, as every other state does.
 
2012-10-27 09:03:27 PM

ArcadianRefugee: CapeFearCadaver: You're an ass. Put down the whiskey.

I like the K in Magic... Are you a Wizard, too?

Huh. Kind of an angry little person, aren't you?


And drunk, don't forget drunk.
 
2012-10-27 09:04:45 PM

CapeFearCadaver: And drunk, don't forget drunk.


This is Fark, it's assumed.
 
2012-10-27 09:07:27 PM
States' rights, amirite?

So, the Union is unnecessary?

Plz. (sarcasm in play)

STFU, and VObama.

Do it now; this is an order, Ensign.

Captain out.
 
2012-10-27 09:18:44 PM

RedPhoenix122: CapeFearCadaver: And drunk, don't forget drunk.

This is Fark, it's assumed.


Obv. Not whiskey though.

CSB: Was cleaning out my car (it really was farking cluttered) two days ago and found an unopened bottle of Skyy.

Yay for the vodak faeries!
 
2012-10-27 09:19:51 PM

GAT_00: Alabama also puts everything in the state Constitution. There's stuff about taxing pig farming in there


Years ago when I worked for a lawyer in Alabama when I got bored I'd read through some of the law books. A huge amount of the Alabama Constitution deals with bingo. If I remember correctly, about ten percent of the amendments to the state constitution were bingo related.

There is no home rule in Alabama so each time a city or county wants to raise taxes or sell bonds, it has to be approved by the entire state and amended to the constitution. It's a really weird system but everyone is afraid of the crazy battles that would take place if they attempted to replace it with something that empowers the legislature to create laws instead of everything needing to be a constitutional amendment. 

And for those who say this is really about school taxes and not race, a few years ago over 40% of the voters voted to not remove the ban on interracial marriage even though the courts had long ago struck it down. It couldn't be enforced but a large segment of the population still liked having the unenforceable law in place.
 
2012-10-27 09:20:33 PM
This should have been passed without having the people vote for it. But they grow them bigger and dumber down there.
 
2012-10-27 09:22:21 PM
Please tell me I'm not the only one disturbed (or unsurprised) by the fact this was actually rejected in 2004...
 
2012-10-27 09:22:53 PM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Sincere opinion - Compared to you, Alabama seems rational and level-headed.


Are you an...an elcor?

/They did Hamlet exceptionally well. Those fourteen hours passed like a lightning strike.
 
2012-10-27 09:26:34 PM
There is no right to public education. You cannot have a right to something that must exist through the effort of others. A right, by definition, is something you must be allowed to have. But that's impossible if it requires another person to fulfill it. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to be listened to, because that involves someone else. You have the right to self-defense, but not to be defended by others, because that forces effort on another to serve you. You have the right to practice your religion, but not to make others practice it too, because again, that would involve the necessary actions of someone else to be fulfilled. If your "right" requires action on the part of another person to be fulfilled, it cannot by definition be a right. Public education (like public healthcare) absolutely requires someone else to act in order for it to be fulfilled. There has to be another person actively teaching the public for there to be public education. That's why it can't be a right. What if that teacher doesn't want to teach?

All rights exist naturally within you and are fulfilled by you alone. If they extend past you and require someone else to fulfill them for you, they cannot be a right.
 
2012-10-27 09:34:19 PM
easy solution here which wasn't even considered pulls the old racist language out and reinsert an amendment stating Alabama children have the right to an education. Slam dunk pass for both. the first does away with what has been dead and gone and the second removes the stumbling block #1
 
2012-10-27 09:38:11 PM

taurusowner: There is no right to public education. You cannot have a right to something that must exist through the effort of others. A right, by definition, is something you must be allowed to have. But that's impossible if it requires another person to fulfill it. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to be listened to, because that involves someone else. You have the right to self-defense, but not to be defended by others, because that forces effort on another to serve you. You have the right to practice your religion, but not to make others practice it too, because again, that would involve the necessary actions of someone else to be fulfilled. If your "right" requires action on the part of another person to be fulfilled, it cannot by definition be a right. Public education (like public healthcare) absolutely requires someone else to act in order for it to be fulfilled. There has to be another person actively teaching the public for there to be public education. That's why it can't be a right. What if that teacher doesn't want to teach?

All rights exist naturally within you and are fulfilled by you alone. If they extend past you and require someone else to fulfill them for you, they cannot be a right.


Ah, civilization. Where we wouldn't be if this perspective was widespread.

/voting Obama, which may possibly be against my personal interests as a white, middle-class, employed, insured, tax-paying, straight, married male.
//because that's what civilized people sometimes have to do
 
2012-10-27 09:39:11 PM

taurusowner: You cannot have a right to something that must exist through the effort of others.


Sounds like you don't like forcing people to pay taxes for schools?

And yet, I imagine you would be farking angry if we stopped paying taxes for your salary.
 
2012-10-27 09:40:05 PM
this thread is one of the most disturbing i've seen on Fark. some ugly opinions, ugly truths, some ideas, responses and what not that are just loaded for bear - it has it all. this is just talking about the topic while glimpsing at it from the outside. i can't imagine how difficult it must be to manage affairs of the state hands-on. but this little thread seems like quite an indicator.
 
2012-10-27 09:43:43 PM

dahmers love zombie: taurusowner: There is no right to public education. You cannot have a right to something that must exist through the effort of others. A right, by definition, is something you must be allowed to have. But that's impossible if it requires another person to fulfill it. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to be listened to, because that involves someone else. You have the right to self-defense, but not to be defended by others, because that forces effort on another to serve you. You have the right to practice your religion, but not to make others practice it too, because again, that would involve the necessary actions of someone else to be fulfilled. If your "right" requires action on the part of another person to be fulfilled, it cannot by definition be a right. Public education (like public healthcare) absolutely requires someone else to act in order for it to be fulfilled. There has to be another person actively teaching the public for there to be public education. That's why it can't be a right. What if that teacher doesn't want to teach?

All rights exist naturally within you and are fulfilled by you alone. If they extend past you and require someone else to fulfill them for you, they cannot be a right.

Ah, civilization. Where we wouldn't be if this perspective was widespread.

/voting Obama, which may possibly be against my personal interests as a white, middle-class, employed, insured, tax-paying, straight, married male.
//because that's what civilized people sometimes have to do


Ok. You live in a village. "Bob" is the only teacher. Your kids have the "right" to a public education. Bob decides he doesn't want to teach anymore. Now their rights are infringed simply through the pursuit of his right to live how he wants. Resolve the situation so that your kids can fulfill their right to a public education supplied by others, without infringing on the rights of others to live how they want. Basically, figure out how to supply a public education without forcing others to actually teach.

It's impossible. You can't have the right to something that must be supplied by others for the simple fact that others have the right to choose not to supply it.
 
2012-10-27 09:47:50 PM

kitsuneymg: Also. If you think Alabama is "dumb", please look up Huntsville and Redstone Arsenal. Basically, it's probably the highest educated city in the US. Silicon Valley might give us a run for the money, but the rest of the US is easily "dumber" than HSV.


I happen to have stunning eyes... it doesn't make the rest of me a supermodel.
a grain of sugar doesn't turn a dog turd into chocolate soufflé
 
2012-10-27 09:49:33 PM

fnordfocus: And yet, I imagine you would be farking angry if we stopped paying taxes for your salary.


My job is a privilege extended to me by the choice of the taxpayers of my city. I have no right to their money. The choose to pay me through taxes. They can choose not to pay me and my department will shrink and I could lose my job. Just as they cannot force me to work, I cannot force them to pay me. Their money is theirs, and my effort is mine. We exchange it thought voluntary decisions. If either party feels it is not getting a fair deal, the transaction can be terminated. I can quit or they can fire me. That's the essence of rights.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Your rights stop where they cross with another person's rights. Like the right not to be a teacher.
 
2012-10-27 09:50:26 PM

intelligent comment below: taurusowner: Ok. You live in a village. "Bob" is the only teacher. Your kids have the "right" to a public education. Bob decides he doesn't want to teach anymore. Now their rights are infringed simply through the pursuit of his right to live how he wants. Resolve the situation so that your kids can fulfill their right to a public education supplied by others, without infringing on the rights of others to live how they want. Basically, figure out how to supply a public education without forcing others to actually teach.

It's impossible. You can't have the right to something that must be supplied by others for the simple fact that others have the right to choose not to supply it.


I have a RIGHT to property, but nobody will sell me property? derp thoughts with another uneducated libertarian idiot


Ummm what? What are you talking about?
 
2012-10-27 09:51:31 PM

doyner: Britney Spear's Speculum: Alabama will vote to keep the language. The spokesmen will cite "tradition" and "history"

"In our rich history we have a tradition of ignorance. Men go to hell in degrees."


seriously. I get it, you have a culture and heritage. So do the rest of us, but we take the ugly parts out and keep the good parts. Like you could keep your delicious southern food and country music and shiat and get rid of all the rebel 'we love slavery' shiat. Trust me, you can do it.

Like, Germany still has Oktoberfest and has banned Nazi Germany stuff. I'm not saying you have to ban symbols that people associate with hate, but maybe you shouldn't cover everything in them.
 
2012-10-27 09:57:34 PM

intelligent comment below: taurusowner: Ok. You live in a village. "Bob" is the only teacher. Your kids have the "right" to a public education. Bob decides he doesn't want to teach anymore. Now their rights are infringed simply through the pursuit of his right to live how he wants. Resolve the situation so that your kids can fulfill their right to a public education supplied by others, without infringing on the rights of others to live how they want. Basically, figure out how to supply a public education without forcing others to actually teach.

It's impossible. You can't have the right to something that must be supplied by others for the simple fact that others have the right to choose not to supply it.


I have a RIGHT to property, but nobody will sell me property? derp thoughts with another uneducated libertarian idiot


So I don't have a right to vote because what if no one wants to work at polling stations or even print ballots for me?
 
2012-10-27 09:59:36 PM
Good for Alabama! At least they are willing to recognize that, because of the statistically well- attested fact that blacks victimize whites at a much greater rate than vice- versa, there are at least some protective benefits to be enjoyed by whites from segregation. Naturally, the presentation of this objectively neutral fact will be greeted by the usual suspects as "hate", "trolling", etc., though curiously none of those flinging around the sh*t will be able to dispute its basic accuracy.
 
2012-10-27 10:02:50 PM

kitsuneymg: Also. If you think Alabama is "dumb", please look up Huntsville and Redstone Arsenal. Basically, it's probably the highest educated city in the US. Silicon Valley might give us a run for the money, but the rest of the US is easily "dumber" than HSV.


I did as you suggested. The two regions you're citing as proof of Alabaman intellectual superiority are locations of NASA / Army rocket propulsion research facilities and a large facility housing various Army departments along with a NASA center, respectively. Something tells me the intelligence of these areas has little to do with Alabama proper, excepting that it had, at some point, a Senator or Representative with enough swagger in DC to pull the facilities to their cheap land, instead of someone else's.
 
2012-10-27 10:06:39 PM

taurusowner: My job is a privilege extended to me by the choice of the taxpayers of my city. I have no right to their money. The choose to pay me through taxes. They can choose not to pay me and my department will shrink and I could lose my job. Just as they cannot force me to work, I cannot force them to pay me. Their money is theirs, and my effort is mine. We exchange it thought voluntary decisions. If either party feels it is not getting a fair deal, the transaction can be terminated. I can quit or they can fire me. That's the essence of rights.


Good for you, but I will point out that it is very common for members of your profession to argue in court that you can't be laid off.

Also, historically, you've been called upon to force striking workers back the job.
 
2012-10-27 10:11:24 PM
intelligent comment below

I have a RIGHT to property, but nobody will sell me property? derp thoughts with another uneducated libertarian idiot


There will always be property available to be sold if the price that the buyer is willing to offer is high enough. Can't find land to buy? Raise the price. Can't raise the price high enough? That is your problem, not that of the landowners. Property rights have never been interpreted to mean that somebody else must be forced to sell you his land.

There is no parallel here with the alleged "right" to education, because in an extreme situation where nobody wants to be an educator people would have to be conscripted as teachers in order to see that this alleged "right" is fulfilled.
 
2012-10-27 10:14:59 PM

ongbok: Idiots. First World countries don't make every effort possible not to have a well funded public education system. In 20 years the U.S is going to be in the same shape as Mexico thanks to idiots like these people.


Dass raciss, ese.
 
2012-10-27 10:15:13 PM

taurusowner: dahmers love zombie: taurusowner: There is no right to public education. You cannot have a right to something that must exist through the effort of others. A right, by definition, is something you must be allowed to have. But that's impossible if it requires another person to fulfill it. You have the right to free speech, but not the right to be listened to, because that involves someone else. You have the right to self-defense, but not to be defended by others, because that forces effort on another to serve you. You have the right to practice your religion, but not to make others practice it too, because again, that would involve the necessary actions of someone else to be fulfilled. If your "right" requires action on the part of another person to be fulfilled, it cannot by definition be a right. Public education (like public healthcare) absolutely requires someone else to act in order for it to be fulfilled. There has to be another person actively teaching the public for there to be public education. That's why it can't be a right. What if that teacher doesn't want to teach?

All rights exist naturally within you and are fulfilled by you alone. If they extend past you and require someone else to fulfill them for you, they cannot be a right.

Ah, civilization. Where we wouldn't be if this perspective was widespread.

/voting Obama, which may possibly be against my personal interests as a white, middle-class, employed, insured, tax-paying, straight, married male.
//because that's what civilized people sometimes have to do

Ok. You live in a village. "Bob" is the only teacher. Your kids have the "right" to a public education. Bob decides he doesn't want to teach anymore. Now their rights are infringed simply through the pursuit of his right to live how he wants. Resolve the situation so that your kids can fulfill their right to a public education supplied by others, without infringing on the rights of others to live how they want. Basically, figure out how to supp ...


I'll assuming the rights to counsel and trial by jury need to be officially struck from the Bill of Rights as they require a lawyer and a group of your countrymen to be compelled to action.

Yes, the students' rights would be impinged. The government would, gasp, have to hire someone else. Or craft a law compelling members of the community to serve, similar to jury duty. We need educated youth. If we can't find someone to do it for pay, we'll have to make someone do it to avoid fines and whatnot. 

The state of Alabama wouldn't see any good from having it not labelled such.
 
2012-10-27 10:17:47 PM
FTFA: The second time won't be any easier than the first because Alabama's two largest black political groups are urging a "no" vote. They say the proposed changes would wipe out some racially charged language, but would retain segregation-era language saying there is no constitutional right to a public education in Alabama. And they've been joined by the state's main teachers' group in refusing to go along.

The devil's in the details.
 
2012-10-27 10:27:34 PM
You know, it's funny that it's taken as a given that the segregated 1950s were a terrible time for race relations by people who never trouble to ask themselves the simple question: how are black people in the South better off now than they were back then? Today blacks have much greater rates of family breakdown leading directly to much greater rates of crime, which in turn leads to the flight of productive citizens (of any race) from the communities they might otherwise have invested their lives and livelihoods in. The result is blighted ghettos, gangs, multi- generational families on welfare, and far less racial interaction than in 1960 owing to the simple fact that most white people are rightly fearful to even visit, let alone settle down in, areas that are mostly black.

But on the plus side, black people no longer have to sit at the back of the bus! So there's that.
 
2012-10-27 10:28:08 PM

taurusowner: You can't have the right to something that must be supplied by others for the simple fact that others have the right to choose not to supply it.


Your grasp of rights is rather poor, though I can't decide if this paucity of understanding falls on the side of comedic or pathetic.
 
2012-10-27 10:29:59 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: The result is blighted ghettos,


Ghettos are nothing new. And have little to do with race issues.

white people are rightly fearful to even visit, l

then again you're a coward so not like you really care to understand anything, you just try to justify your fear and ignorance.
 
2012-10-27 10:31:16 PM

xanadian: What?

*rtfa*

Though it ended decades ago, segregation is still mandated by Alabama's constitution. But an effort to remove the outdated language isn't supported by everyone, including some African Americans.

WHAT!?? 

They say the proposed changes would wipe out some racially charged language, but would retain segregation-era language saying there is no constitutional right to a public education in Alabama.

Oh. Christ, Alabama, WTF


Public education is, by definition, socialism.

Plus, education also tends to turn republicans into democrats. So thats two reasons they dont want education in alabama.
 
2012-10-27 10:39:11 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: You know, it's funny that it's taken as a given that the segregated 1950s were a terrible time for race relations by people who never trouble to ask themselves the simple question: how are black people in the South better off now than they were back then? Today blacks have much greater rates of family breakdown leading directly to much greater rates of crime, which in turn leads to the flight of productive citizens (of any race) from the communities they might otherwise have invested their lives and livelihoods in. The result is blighted ghettos, gangs, multi- generational families on welfare, and far less racial interaction than in 1960 owing to the simple fact that most white people are rightly fearful to even visit, let alone settle down in, areas that are mostly black.

But on the plus side, black people no longer have to sit at the back of the bus! So there's that.


And I guess you think that slavery was good for black people because otherwise they would have been living in Africa in as savages dieing of all kinds of diseases, starvation and animal attacks. The slave owners took them out of those conditions and put a roof over their heads and fed them all for a honest days work.

This is what you believe isn't it?
 
2012-10-27 10:44:26 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Good for Alabama! At least they are willing to recognize that, because of the statistically well- attested fact that blacks victimize whites at a much greater rate than vice- versa, there are at least some protective benefits to be enjoyed by whites from segregation. Naturally, the presentation of this objectively neutral fact will be greeted by the usual suspects as "hate", "trolling", etc., though curiously none of those flinging around the sh*t will be able to dispute its basic accuracy.


people.virginia.edu


EvilRacistNaziFascist: You know, it's funny that it's taken as a given that the segregated 1950s were a terrible time for race relations by people who never trouble to ask themselves the simple question: how are black people in the South better off now than they were back then? Today blacks have much greater rates of family breakdown leading directly to much greater rates of crime, which in turn leads to the flight of productive citizens (of any race) from the communities they might otherwise have invested their lives and livelihoods in. The result is blighted ghettos, gangs, multi- generational families on welfare, and far less racial interaction than in 1960 owing to the simple fact that most white people are rightly fearful to even visit, let alone settle down in, areas that are mostly black.

But on the plus side, black people no longer have to sit at the back of the bus! So there's that.


people.virginia.edu
 
2012-10-27 10:49:26 PM
Alabama has beautiful beaches.
 
2012-10-27 10:58:33 PM

WhyteRaven74: EvilRacistNaziFascist: The result is blighted ghettos,

Ghettos are nothing new. And have little to do with race issues.


Yeah, I'm sure the fact that ghettoes across the US are racially segregated has nothing to do with race.

white people are rightly fearful to even visit, l

then again you're a coward so not like you really care to understand anything, you just try to justify your fear and ignorance.


OK darling, so put your money where your mouth is and move to a majority black area -- after all, all other things being equal the houses in those neighbourhoods are nice and cheap. (Apparently you can pick up a property in Detroit for $100.) I wouldn't want to think that you were a hypocrite like the other 99% of white liberals who, even as they preach racial equality, for mysterious reasons prefer to live in majority- white areas.
 
2012-10-27 11:02:26 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: , I'm sure the fact that ghettoes across the US are racially segregated has nothing to do with race.


There are white ghettos. Living in a slum, or ghetto if you prefer, has historically not much to do with race. Indeed it wasn't that long ago a larger percentage of whites lived in them, though even now those slums are still referred to as tenements and other things that make them appear to be something other than what they were. And slums exist not because of the people living in them so much as the people who own the buildings.
 
2012-10-27 11:05:28 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: move to a majority black area


Your assertion mentioned visiting. I've walked through plenty of black neighborhoods without a worry in the world.
 
2012-10-27 11:10:18 PM
This is an "anti-tax" measure disguised as an "anti-racism" measure. The corporations and businesses that support this don't give a rat's ass about segregationist language in the state constitution, they wrote this as a loophole to reduce state funding for Alabama public schools.

So no, I wouldn't vote for it either. I'd rather leave the moron racist language intact than fark up public education, especially in a state that needs for its people to be educated so badly.

FTA: "Amendment 4 would excise outdated language about poll taxes and separate schools that many consider racist. But the critics say the language being proposed as a substitute undermines funding for public education by reaffirming that there is no right to a public education at taxpayers' expense in Alabama.

"It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It seems so good but is so bad," said black Democratic Sen. Hank Sanders of Selma, a New South founder.

Alabama's constitution once provided for "a liberal system of public schools throughout the state for the benefit of the children." But attitudes changed after the U.S. Supreme Court banned school segregation in 1954. Angry Alabama citizens voted in 1956 to amend the constitution to say there is no right to a public education at taxpayers' expense and that "students shall attend schools provided for their own race." Both changes were meant to thwart integration."
 
2012-10-27 11:11:19 PM

Damnhippyfreak: [people.virginia.edu image 500x75]


Damnhippyfreak: Merely enumerating what you believe to be argumentative fallacies is not the same as making an argument for or against anything: you also have to demonstrate that they are indeed fallacies by explicit reference to the facts under discussion. I contended that the life of black Americans prior to desegregation was in many points preferable to their lives today, and gave various examples to illustrate why this might be the case. In order to refute what I said, you would have to provide more numerous or more persuasive counter- arguments. Please either do so or quit making a parade of your ignorance.

Alternatively, of course, you could continue to take the easy way out and pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist... although this tactic is now losing its effectiveness through overuse, it is still preferentially employed by those who find it too difficult to actually think.
 
Displayed 50 of 184 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report