So let's talk about these recent poll numbers

[bdkane]

No, not going to let you frame this your way. There's plenty more to civil rights than "where people can spend their money". Republicans have spent the last decade disenfranchising black people. And yes, voting is a civil right. The GOP candidate's response to racial inequities in the justice system is to proclaim that "police are the most mistreated group in the country". So you can imagine what he will do in office GOP fought tooth and nail to stop gay marriage from happening. GOP is still fighting LGBT civil rights. None of this has to do with "where people spend their money".

The greatest irony? GOP proclaims itself the party of "small govt" and "individual liberties"

GFTO with this bullshyt, PLEASE.

You ethered his ass into oblivion. Please end this thread now. This is like Tyson/ Marvis Frazier.......

 

[CACtain Planet]

No, not going to let you frame this your way. There's plenty more to civil rights than "where people can spend their money". Republicans have spent the last decade disenfranchising black people. And yes, voting is a civil right. The GOP candidate's response to racial inequities in the justice system is to proclaim that "police are the most mistreated group in the country". So you can imagine what he will do in office GOP fought tooth and nail to stop gay marriage from happening. GOP is still fighting LGBT civil rights. None of this has to do with "where people spend their money".

The greatest irony? GOP proclaims itself the party of "small govt" and "individual liberties"

GFTO with this bullshyt, PLEASE.

:rockii:"Where people can spend their money" was the basis of the civil rights act in 1964...the right of black folk to spend money at white restaurant, enroll in white schools, move into white neighborhoods, borrow money from white banks, frequent white shopping center, etc. which is why the only relevant black institution in America today is the black church..And yes voting is a civil right, but requiring EVERYONE to have an ID card to vote moreso disenfranchises illegal immigrants, not black people...The right to marry isnt a CIVIL RIGHT for it if were it would be regulated by the federal government, not individual state governments....at the end of the day gay marriage aint an issue in this country anymore, politicians who proclaim as such are just throwing red meat to their base...I said all that to say that your assertions are filled with conjecture but nothing really of substance:Shawltrump:

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

:rockii:"Where people can spend their money" was the basis of the civil rights act in 1964...the right of black folk to spend money at white restaurant, enroll in white schools, move into white neighborhoods, borrow money from white banks, frequent white shopping center, etc. which is why the only relevant black institution in America today is the black church..And yes voting is a civil right, but requiring EVERYONE to have an ID card to vote moreso disenfranchises illegal immigrants, not black people...The right to marry isnt a CIVIL RIGHT for it if were it would be regulated by the federal government, not individual state governments....at the end of the day gay marriage aint an issue in this country anymore, politicians who proclaim as such are just throwing red meat to their base...I said all that to say that your assertions are filled with conjecture but nothing really of substance:Shawltrump:

Hey dumbass

Of the 11 titles in the 1964 CRA,

• 8 (EIGHT, OCHO, ONE MORE THAN SEVEN, ONE LESS THAN NINE) are concerned with discrimination by the govt- govt facilities, voting rights, schools etc
• 1 created the Community Relations Service, a govt mitigation organization
• 1 dealt with private employers (hiring practices, aka nothing to do with where people spend their money)
• 1 (ONE, UNO, SINGLE) dealt with private commerce

So no, "where people can spend their money" was NOT the basis of the 1964 CRA. Literally over 80% of it deals strictly with discrimination or discrimination related issues stemming from the govt

And voter ID laws are designed to disenfranchise blacks. You look in NC, blacks outnumber Latinos 2 to 1, and a lot of those Latinos, are not citizens... so even if they're here legally, they could not vote. JFC you could not know less about what you're talking about if you actively tried...... you can't fool me with them damn smilies :biggapls: :yadontsay: :scumbag: :weazle:

 

[CACtain Planet]

Hey dumbass

Of the 11 titles in the 1964 CRA,

• 8 (EIGHT, OCHO, ONE MORE THAN SEVEN, ONE LESS THAN NINE) are concerned with discrimination by the govt- govt facilities, voting rights, schools etc
• 1 created the Community Relations Service, a govt mitigation organization
• 1 dealt with private employers (hiring practices, aka nothing to do with where people spend their money)
• 1 (ONE, UNO, SINGLE) dealt with private commerce

So no, "where people can spend their money" was NOT the basis of the 1964 CRA. Literally over 80% of it deals strictly with discrimination or discrimination related issues stemming from the govt

And voter ID laws are designed to disenfranchise blacks. You look in NC, blacks outnumber Latinos 2 to 1, and a lot of those Latinos, are not citizens... so even if they're here legally, they could not vote. JFC you could not know less about what you're talking about if you actively tried...... you can't fool me with them damn smilies :biggapls: :yadontsay: :scumbag: :weazle:

:c00neticut:Why wouldnt a legal citizen over the age of 18 not have any identification of some sort? Also, I did mention white schools in my post which also deals with dollars (asses in seats = more tuition paid to the institution)....Point is, before 1964 black folk had a vibrant conglomerate of black owned businesses, schools, etc..Now those businesses are nonexistent and the schools arent prominent thanks in part to the civil rights act and also c00n ass black leaders having this idea that patronizing a white institution is better than supporting your own. :Bronie:

 

[Broke Wave]

:c00neticut:Why wouldnt a legal citizen over the age of 18 not have any identification of some sort? Also, I did mention white schools in my post which also deals with dollars (asses in seats = more tuition paid to the institution)....Point is, before 1964 black folk had a vibrant conglomerate of black owned businesses, schools, etc..Now those businesses are nonexistent and the schools arent prominent thanks in part to the civil rights act and also c00n ass black leaders having this idea that patronizing a white institution is better than supporting your own. :Bronie:

Do you genuinely think that black people were better off during segregation?

 

[CACtain Planet]

Do you genuinely think that black people were better off during segregation?

No, but I think we were better off fighting for Plessy v. Ferguson to be enforced to the letter of the law...Separate but EQUAL in allocation of resources..A school like FAMU would be on par with the University of Florida today if that were the case

 

[Broke Wave]

No, but I think we were better off fighting for Plessy v. Ferguson to be enforced to the letter of the law...Separate but EQUAL in allocation of resources..A school like FAMU would be on par with the University of Florida today if that were the case

Plessy v Ferguson is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. I actually had to write a paper about it back in school which doesn't make me an expert but still I have some knowledge on this issue. The problem with separate but equal is that resources are not in practice allocated equally in any case, and that a school like the University of Florida, which is a public school, could not be legally a white school because it is funded with black and brown state tax dollars.

The argument is that taxes are collected from everyone regardless of race, and that in places where more taxes are collected, more resources are allocated on the state and local level. Those districts at the state and local level who have more resources are typically white, and at this point and time in history the black districts were as a matter of fact contributing to their local governments less than a white district. Furthermore, it would be impossible to regulate the governors at the state level and prevent them from allocating resources in a racist manner without massive oversight over the states to the point where the states had almost no power, and that is an impossibility in the American system.

The final point is that the quality of the institutions, schools in this case, is totally up to subjective debate. One could see an obvious dilapidated black school and say well, we allocated the proper amount of resources under our state guidelines, and there would be no recourse. Black schools could have lower test scores and you couldn't say it was a result of poor funding as a matter of fact, so it would be easy to say it was because they had lower mental capacity. It would allow states to fund the absolute bare minimum to both white and black schools, thereby contracting the governments reach in this area allowing for private interests and money (which the white communities have) to increase the gap. This is still somewhat the case today, but imagine this on an absolutely racist basis.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

:c00neticut:Why wouldnt a legal citizen over the age of 18 not have any identification of some sort? Also, I did mention white schools in my post which also deals with dollars (asses in seats = more tuition paid to the institution)....Point is, before 1964 black folk had a vibrant conglomerate of black owned businesses, schools, etc..Now those businesses are nonexistent and the schools arent prominent thanks in part to the civil rights act and also c00n ass black leaders having this idea that patronizing a white institution is better than supporting your own. :Bronie:

"Why don't people have IDs"

"Black people were happier before CRA"

What next? Why don't black people care about black on black crime? Why do we get to call each other nikka while you can't? I see you're defaulting to your white supremacist racial discussion go-to talking point cue cards :scumbag:

Is it really that hard to shut the fukk up about things you don't know about?

 

[CACtain Planet]

Plessy v Ferguson is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. I actually had to write a paper about it back in school which doesn't make me an expert but still I have some knowledge on this issue. The problem with separate but equal is that resources are not in practice allocated equally in any case, and that a school like the University of Florida, which is a public school, could not be legally a white school because it is funded with black and brown state tax dollars.

The argument is that taxes are collected from everyone regardless of race, and that in places where more taxes are collected, more resources are allocated on the state and local level. Those districts at the state and local level who have more resources are typically white, and at this point and time in history the black districts were as a matter of fact contributing to their local governments less than a white district. Furthermore, it would be impossible to regulate the governors at the state level and prevent them from allocating resources in a racist manner without massive oversight over the states to the point where the states had almost no power, and that is an impossibility in the American system.

The final point is that the quality of the institutions, schools in this case, is totally up to subjective debate. One could see an obvious dilapidated black school and say well, we allocated the proper amount of resources under our state guidelines, and there would be no recourse. Black schools could have lower test scores and you couldn't say it was a result of poor funding as a matter of fact, so it would be easy to say it was because they had lower mental capacity. It would allow states to fund the absolute bare minimum to both white and black schools, thereby contracting the governments reach in this area allowing for private interests and money (which the white communities have) to increase the gap. This is still somewhat the case today, but imagine this on an absolutely racist basis.

Here is the rub on that point friend...Both FAMU and UF are both federal land grant institutions so it would be easier for the federal government to ensure that both institutions received the same amount of funding and resources if Plessy v. Ferguson was enforced to the letter of law..You are canadian so you probably wouldnt understand the dynamics of this taking into account the Freedman's bureau which established the foundation for land grant institutions (most Americans dont know what a land grant institution is either)..Would it also lead to more federal oversight by the federal government in other areas? sure, but we are talking about public spaces so I say Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP LDF were better off fighting for those equal resources as stipulated in Plessy v Ferguson rather than fight for black folk to patronize white institutions because we see now that it effectively destroyed black institutions (except the church obviously)

 

[CACtain Planet]

"Why don't people have IDs"

"Black people were happier before CRA"

What next? Why don't black people care about black on black crime? Why do we get to call each other nikka while you can't? I see you're defaulting to your white supremacist racial discussion go-to talking point cue cards :scumbag:

Is it really that hard to shut the fukk up about things you don't know about?

Im pretty sure I have more knowledge in my panky ring than you do on the issue

 

[Tony D'Amato]

@CACtain Planet is really in here telling Kneegrows how to feel

 

[Broke Wave]

Here is the rub on that point friend...Both FAMU and UF are both federal land grant institutions so it would be easier for the federal government to ensure that both institutions received the same amount of funding if Plessy v. Ferguson was enforced to the letter of law..Would that also lead to more oversight by the federal government in other areas? sure, but we are talking about public spaces so I say Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP LDF were better off fighting for those equal resources as stipulated in Plessy v Ferguson rather fight for black folk to patronize white institutions because we see now that it effectively destroyed black institutions (except the church obviously)

Yes but there are two different realities in cases like this which are the de jure reality and the de facto reality. According to the law for example, the GI bill was available to all Americans after WW2 and was instrumental in building up the massive middle class in America. The de facto matter of fact reality is that African Americans were discouraged and discriminated against from fighting in WW2 as a percentage of the population which would actively increase their chances at recieving their fairly allocated GI bill. Therefore the law must address the de facto reality. This is why the CRA was passed and is upheld by the Supreme Court. If White grocery stores have for example the higher quality and cheaper food which was often the case, do African Americans have access to this resource under the law? As a matter of fact they do not and this is why the Interstate Commerce Clause upheld the CRA.

To go back to the point about schools... the law would state that funding should be color blind, but as a matter of fact it would not be due to innumerable factors. If Black Americans were also also further disenfranchised before the Voting Rights act, how could they properly be represented and their tax dollars be allocated fairly? A Black school in a poor Black district would be at the mercy of the wealth of that community, the honesty of the state and local government, and the benevolence of do-gooder Whites who would invariably donate.

 

[CACtain Planet]

Yes but there are two different realities in cases like this which are the de jure reality and the de facto reality. According to the law for example, the GI bill was available to all Americans after WW2 and was instrumental in building up the massive middle class in America. The de facto matter of fact reality is that African Americans were discouraged and discriminated against from fighting in WW2 as a percentage of the population which would actively increase their chances at recieving their fairly allocated GI bill. Therefore the law must address the de facto reality. This is why the CRA was passed and is upheld by the Supreme Court. If White grocery stores have for example the higher quality and cheaper food which was often the case, do African Americans have access to this resource under the law? As a matter of fact they do not and this is why the Interstate Commerce Clause upheld the CRA.

To go back to the point about schools... the law would state that funding should be color blind, but as a matter of fact it would not be due to innumerable factors. If Black Americans were also also further disenfranchised before the Voting Rights act, how could they properly be represented and their tax dollars be allocated fairly? A Black school in a poor Black district would be at the mercy of the wealth of that community, the honesty of the state and local government, and the benevolence of do-gooder Whites who would invariably donate.

I get your point, and which is why I said Thurgood Marshall was better off making the point for equal resources provided by individual states rather than fighting for black folk to patronize white institutions..Because de facto would have eventually been a non factor when white folk started to see (and they started to see anyway in big metropolitan areas like Atlanta and Houston) that it was better for business to allow black folk to patronize a business rather than discriminate...I think once allocation of equal resources was established then it would of been time to fight for a CRA style legislation...but instead we are stuck with this hoodwink style of structure while the unemployment and incarceration rates of black folk continue to be double of that whites and its been that way since 1964.....

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Im pretty sure I have more knowledge in my panky ring than you do on the issue

If this is the case why are you allowing me to intellectually

you like this

I almost feel bad

 

[CACtain Planet]

If this is the case why are you allowing me to intellectually

you like this

I almost feel bad

:Lyesss: