b..b...b..but I keep getting told on this board that racism only occurs in the south!!! How can your references be true since they indicate that there was racism outside the south!
No, you won't quote what I said in its entirety because it clearly shows you were wrong. You were implying private property laws as well. You're just backtracking now. And, of course, none of this changes the fact that you still haven't shown that the definition of Jim Crow is as narrow as you wish it was. JKWD addressed this somewhat. I'll just say again, since you don't seem to get it, Jim Crow referred to the entire system in place, including state enacted legislation and state enforced segregation by businesses engaged in public accomodation. I see you ignored the part where I said the study also undermines your point that private businesses would stop segregating because it wouldn't be in their best interests. You're the one that fails to understand a simple concept. One last time, laws are enacted all the time based on society's belief that the behavior the law prohibits is wrong in and of itself. Where have you shown that racial violence against blacks increased in the 60's and 70's, much less that the resentment against the Civil Rights Act was the cause? If you're talking about a 5th Amendment taking....Heart of Atlanta specifically rejected such claims. Private property isn't some magical phrase that bestows some sort of immunity on the person that utters it. You don't, and never have had, have an unrestrained right to do anything you want with your private property.
danny, can a person murder another person so long as he does it on his private property? If not, why, then, is it morally or legally permissible for a person to racially discriminate on his private property? I'm interested in seeing your philosophical reasoning on the difference, and I'm interested in seeing your legal reasoning. Cuz it's bound to be hilarious.
Anyway, there is a rumor that Ron Paul will be excluded from the next Republican Presidential Debate. It is not true! from the Daily Paul... Jane Aitken on the New Hampshire Debate situation Posted December 28th, 2007 by bedr1 The answer is NO! He is just not confirmed yet. On December 27th, 2007 Jane Aitken says: Please do NOT bombard the NH GOP. I spoke to them about this LAST WEEK and they said all the candidates were invited.. This is my post from below. This is an unconfirmed schedule for the last days before the NH primary. I am in touch with the campaign and with the NH GOP to find out if he will be attending the GOP's two events.. I assure you, the NH GOP (Fergus Cullen) would NOT dare to exclude him. NH does not do things like that, so whoever wrote that snarky piece is a jerk. It was more likely that the AP was given the list of those who'd already RSVP'd and Ron likely hadn't at the time. It never said he was 'excluded'. That was an assumption by that blogger.. RON PAUL AT ST. ANSELMS for DEBATE - JANUARY 5th at 7:00 PM ABC, WMUR-TV and Facebook will jointly host back-to-back Republican and Democrat debates from Saint Anselm College on Saturday evening, 7 PM EST, just three days before the official first in the nation primary the following Tuesday. Charles Gibson will moderate. RON PAUL IN MILFORD - JANUARY 6th (Unconfirmed) First in the Nation Presidential Brunch on Sunday, January 6th, 2008 from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM at Hampshire Hills, Milford, NH. RON PAUL AT LIBERTY FORUM - JANUARY 6th This event is at Crowne Plaza in Nashua and Ron will speak at the closing event on Sunday at around 12:15 PM. (Milford and Nashua are 5 minutes from each other so this is doable) CANDIDATE FORUM - JANUARY 6th (Unconfirmed) The New Hampshire Republican Party is sponsoring a forum for Republican presidential candidates on Jan. 6, two days before the state's first-in-the-nation primary. Unlike a debate, the candidates will face questions from Chris Wallace around a table in a studio on the campus of St. Anselm College in Goffstown, N.H. The 90-minute encounter will air live beginning at 8 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and on Fox News Radio. So please hold your emails to the NH GOP. I am in touch with them about the brunch as well as the round table.
Incorrect. I won't reply to your entire post because it was an extreme attempt to get me to respond to nothing but strawmen. I'm not doing it. Go ahead and think you won the argument, but I'm not going to waste my time in pedantic silliness.
Yet more evidence that you don't know what a strawman is. You're the one positing ridiculous hypotheticals, denying that the Civil Rights Act produced concrete benefits, while trumpeting negatives that you can't even prove. When your point is undermined....you try to change what your point was. Silliness indeed.
So when I produce a study that proves that forced racial integration had negative side affects, I must go onto a tangent about the intent of the study? Sorry, proof is proof. If there is proof that someone committed a murder during an investigation of someone for tax evasion, am I going to forget about the murder because my intent was proving the tax evasion?! My point has stayed the same the entire time and every time I back up an assertion you pull this crap out.
So if I follow your reasoning, only physical harm is a crime. So a pickpocket is not a criminal. I doubt that's what you mean, so please tell us why you don't mean that.
I have a real problem with the exclusion of candidates from debates. In the general election the threshold to be included in the debates is 15% in the national polls. Its not fair to the Libertarians & Greens. They're the two major third parties and they deserve inclusion in the debates. I don't always agree with them but I think it would make the debates more interesting. Let's face if Ron Paul doesn't get the nominationrum we'll be left with the choice of Coke vs Pepsi as usual. There is very little difference between the Republican & Democratic "Frontrunners" However, I should probably give way to the never ending debating on the Civil Rights Act which should really take place in another forum. T
A strawman is where you take someones statement and refute it out of context by declaring something much more dramatic or crazy. In the end though, no matter what, you're still a racist!
Ralph Nader's fanboys gave us this same line of reasoning in 2000. Lo and behold, it turned out that there were major, significant differences between the two leading candidates after all! There is a greater difference between Paul and the current leading candidates than there are between the leading candidates themselves; I'll grant you that. However, the differences between the leading Republicans and the leading Democrats are considerable. Furthermore, at least some of the issues on which Paul distinguishes himself are, to put it mildly, silly. There's a reason that conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites find appeal in Paul's call to return to the gold standard, and it ain't because they all happen to have PhDs in economics.
So he's supported by Racists and anti-Semites...ok so what about his support from the homophones and "Islamophobes" ? We've got to get all of them you know! John Edwards Hillary Clinton Barrack Obama Guliani Romney Thompson (Is he still a major candidate) Huckabee McCain OK Go...tell me how they're different, policy wise, from eachother.
Well, you are not following my reasoning correctly. You are assuming I am saying something that I am not.
(I'm stealing this joke from another forum, where someone else tried to push the "there's no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans" idea) Wow! A time traveller from the year 2000! Did you bring any Tampa Bay Mutiny shirts? Oh, lower Manhattan is a little different than you remember FYI
I gotta say, this John Kevin W. Desk fella has really found his medium in these Ron Paul threads. This must have been what it was like to have been around when Jimi Hendrix started playing rock'n'roll, or when Elvis started singing a black song in white style or a white song in black style. We're witnessing the birth of a genius. I may not be following your reasoning, but I *am* following you're writing. My mind-meld helmet is in the shop, so that's all I have to go on.
Okay, fine. Except for major differences on Iraq policy, foreign policy in general, environmental protection, abortion, gun control, trade rules, regulation of financial markets, gay rights, torture and the Geneva conventions, nationalized health care, farm and ethanol subsidies, fuel standards, evolution, taxation, public schools and federal funding of pre-K, the role of religion in the public sphere, and a bunch of other things, really, they're virtually identical. But I mean, none of them are brave enough to think that we should return to a century-old monetary policy. I get it: Ron Paul is different. That doesn't mean that the others are all the same.
You have to be kidding. He has easily ascended to the throne of worst poster on bigsoccer. In that sense, we have seen the birth of a genius. He is the vanguard of calling everyone else a racist, whether they are or not. He is the anti-Hitler using Hitler's methods. He is the undisputed king of destroying threads. Had he lived in another time, I'm sure he would have been gainfully employed as the vandal hired to burn printing presses and shout down speakers. What he has done in this thread (not without encouragement, I might sadly add) panders to the worst instincts and to the lowest common denominator of this community. You and I disagree on almost everything, but your worst posts are a billion times better than his best. But back to the Ron Paul show.