A Look at Post Racial Tennessee

Integration in America would have come about much sooner had GOVERNMENT not stepped in and separated the races and nationalities.

Propaganda must be subtle and convince people that up is down. Slavery happened without government. It was an evil system of the strong over the weak. In America the state governments had differing approaches to the institution. In the end it was in fact government and inspiration from God which rendered this evil institution to history books. The racist have simply left the Democratic party where as Dixiecrats they felt uncomfortable with the Civil Rights Act and the support the Democrats gave the same. They have migrated to the Republican Party and have rendered it irrelevant. The Republican Party will return to the party of Lincoln and Teddy, but it first must get rid of propagandist who distort the truth.

Bob wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yeah liberals get all fake ruffled over things like this but turn a blind eye to the mass killing of millions of black babies that they have denigrated to nothing more than a clump of cells when in all reality they are the well spring of life on earth...pretty fouled logic ...

I don't know about the liberal vs conservative stuff,  but if we have to have a label for everything then you can label me a liberal on this one too.
I don't have any trouble comprehending that a fully grown adult is a human being but the jury is still out for me on how to deal with the whole fetus thing.

I've been torn on that ever since two things occurred to me.

Let's say you "conservatives" have finally gotten your way and all abortion is now murder.
And let's say your teenage niece is raped by some psycho maggot home invader.
And your pregnant niece does not want to give birth to a psycho maggot home invader's baby as a result of her being raped by him.
So,  a long time family physician who is a friend agrees to do the illegal abortion.

I don't know if I would approve of prosecuting both the teenage niece and the doctor for murder.  Because if all abortion is murder then that's what it would be.  Like you conservatives yourselves say "it doesn't matter what the circumstances are,  a fetus is a human being and it's murdering a human being".

And then there's that other scenario.  To make ends meet,  your newly married pregnant daughter is clerking in a convenience store.  And a psycho maggot armed robber comes in to rob the place.   In a scuffle he fires his gun and shoots your daughter in the stomach.  Your daughter survives but her fetus doesn't.
Would I want to prosecute the psycho maggot armed robber for murder?
You're goddam right I would.

So,  as I said,  I'm torn on that one.  But not the scenario Sal's link outlined.  That one I have no problem reaching a conclusion about.

You might find a handful of people who believe that there should never be any abortions under any circumstances. That is not realistic so dig yourself out of that lie.

PLEASE post for us, it is easily available, the percent of abortions performed because of rape or incest.

It is used for birth control which is so disgusting as to be unspeakable.

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:
Yes, blacks were trying to overcome laws written by Democrats.

How many generations ago was that incident in 1946?

Integration in America would have come about much sooner had GOVERNMENT not stepped in and separated the races and nationalities.

That's three different points.

1.  why address that to me?  I don't like democrats any more than republicans.  lol

2.  Lessee.  That would be about 70 years.  And generations change about every 20 years.  So that would be 3 1/2 generations.  

3.  How did the government "separate the races"?  I thought government mandated integration put the races together.  That's what happened at Pensacola High.

You really should do a little research so you would know what was happening and a bit, just a bit of our history.

Prior to government mandated integration, the races were separated by LAW. Laws written by Democrats.

Markle wrote:

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:
Yes, blacks were trying to overcome laws written by Democrats.

How many generations ago was that incident in 1946?

Integration in America would have come about much sooner had GOVERNMENT not stepped in and separated the races and nationalities.

That's three different points.

1.  why address that to me?  I don't like democrats any more than republicans.  lol

2.  Lessee.  That would be about 70 years.  And generations change about every 20 years.  So that would be 3 1/2 generations.  

3.  How did the government "separate the races"?  I thought government mandated integration put the races together.  That's what happened at Pensacola High.

You really should do a little research so you would know what was happening and a bit, just a bit of our history.

Prior to government mandated integration, the races were separated by LAW.  Laws written by Democrats.  

You might do a bit of reading yourself beginning with Plessy v Ferguson, 1896

Markle wrote:

You really should do a little research so you would know what was happening and a bit, just a bit of our history.

Prior to government mandated integration, the races were separated by LAW.  Laws written by Democrats.  

Nah if I fucked up this time it's not because I don't know that history.  It's because I'm getting senile and how you worded the statements is what's confusing  me.  So let's take another look at the two statements.

First one...

"Integration in America would have come about much sooner had GOVERNMENT not stepped in and separated the races and nationalities"

and second one...

"Prior to government mandated integration, the races were separated by LAW.  Laws written by Democrats."

In the context you're using,  "law" and "government" would be the same thing.
The government makes law and the government enforces law.

But BOTH are saying the government/law SEPARATED the races.
So I ask again,  would you please explain to me how that could be true.  If I need a history lesson I'll glady take it.  Especially if you can tell me how government mandated integration separated the races.  If you can make a case for that,  then I will freely admit that something was badly lacking in my education about all this (sincerely).

2seaoat wrote:Integration in America would have come about much sooner had GOVERNMENT not stepped in and separated the races and nationalities.

Propaganda must be subtle and convince people that up is down.  Slavery happened without government.  It was an evil system of the strong over the weak.  In America the state governments had differing approaches to the institution.  In the end it was in fact government and inspiration from God which rendered this evil institution to history books.   The racist have simply left the Democratic party where as Dixiecrats they felt uncomfortable with the Civil Rights Act and the support the Democrats gave the same.   They have migrated to the Republican Party and have rendered it irrelevant.   The Republican Party will return to the party of Lincoln and Teddy, but it first must get rid of propagandist who distort the truth.

Show us the list of Democrats who changed their party to Republicans after the Civil Rights Acts were passed...by REPUBLICANS.

Let's see...there was Democrat Al Gore, Sr. Oh, right he didn't change.

Then there was Democrat George Wallace...who became a Republican...Oh, right he last ran as an Independent.

Oh, then there was the recruiter for the KKK, Democrat Robert Byrd...Oh, right...he didn't change either.

I was 15-16 years old when the two Civil Rights Acts were enacted in 64 and 65. I was old enough to watch it unfold on tv, and to witness it and talk about it with my peers. Some of the really staunch resistance to it was right here where I was living. It forced a culture change like probably no other in my lifetime.

But I still don't know how the two Civil Rights Acts served to separate the races.

Mr. Markle is fully aware of his sophistry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

knothead wrote:

Markle wrote:

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:
Yes, blacks were trying to overcome laws written by Democrats.

How many generations ago was that incident in 1946?

Integration in America would have come about much sooner had GOVERNMENT not stepped in and separated the races and nationalities.

That's three different points.

1.  why address that to me?  I don't like democrats any more than republicans.  lol

2.  Lessee.  That would be about 70 years.  And generations change about every 20 years.  So that would be 3 1/2 generations.  

3.  How did the government "separate the races"?  I thought government mandated integration put the races together.  That's what happened at Pensacola High.

You really should do a little research so you would know what was happening and a bit, just a bit of our history.

Prior to government mandated integration, the races were separated by LAW.  Laws written by Democrats.  

You might do a bit of reading yourself beginning with Plessy v Ferguson, 1896

THANK YOU!

F. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896) Supreme Court decision

This is a line from my outline for teaching Fair Housing. What was the Plessy v Ferguson case?

This decision was based on a law in Louisiana which required that black passengers, riding on a train in Louisiana MUST ride in a separate car from the white passengers.

Plessy v. Ferguson UPHELD that law by a 7 to 1 decision and thus established that the Separate but Equal Doctrine was legal and enforceable in all States.

Following that, in my outline:

G. 19th Amendment, ratified August 26, 1920



H. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) Supreme Court


To further educate you, the 19th Amendment gave the right to vote to women. My grandmother was 31 when she first got the right to vote.

After nearly 60 years (at least 2 generations, the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954 overturned the Plessy v. Education decision of 1896.

Share with us all of the Federally Protected classes contained in the Civil Rights act of 1968.

Bob wrote:I was 15-16 years old when the two Civil Rights Acts were enacted in 64 and 65.   I was old enough to watch it unfold on tv,   and to witness it and talk about it with my peers.  Some of the really staunch resistance to it was right here where I was living.  It forced a culture change like probably no other in my lifetime.  

But I still don't know how the two Civil Rights Acts served to separate the races.

They were passed in 1964 and 1968.

This really isn't that difficult!

Markle wrote:

You might find a handful of people who believe that there should never be any abortions under any circumstances.  That is not realistic so dig yourself out of that lie.

I am one of the folks who is against abortion for ANY reason.
But I don't try to make others feel as I do.
And others shouldn't try to change how I feel about it either.

Bob wrote:I don't believe that's an uncommon isolated incident,  Sal.   It was a sick fucking society which probably produced many examples of similiar atrocities.

It was so sick that it had less regard for human beings than it did dogs because I doubt even dogs they didn't like were mutilated like that.

The sad truth is, this kind of racial crapola isn't rare in the deep south.

Sadder still, the percentage of white trash doesn't appear to diminish in these regions. I'm reminded everytime I take my wife to a nice restaurant and there's a table with some redneck cretin wearing his camo shirt and camo baseball hat at the table.

Coming from outside the deep south, I thought redneck white trash humor was an exaggeration. Like jokes about the Hatfields and McCoys.

Now I've been here awhile, I know better.

Like the need for a rebel flag license plate, it's all too real!

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:

You really should do a little research so you would know what was happening and a bit, just a bit of our history.

Prior to government mandated integration, the races were separated by LAW.  Laws written by Democrats.  

Nah if I fucked up this time it's not because I don't know that history.  It's because I'm getting senile and how you worded the statements is what's confusing  me.  So let's take another look at the two statements.

First one...

"Integration in America would have come about much sooner had GOVERNMENT not stepped in and separated the races and nationalities"

and second one...

"Prior to government mandated integration, the races were separated by LAW.  Laws written by Democrats."

In the context you're using,  "law" and "government" would be the same thing.
The government makes law and the government enforces law.

But BOTH are saying the government/law SEPARATED the races.
So I ask again,  would you please explain to me how that could be true.  If I need a history lesson I'll glady take it.  Especially if you can tell me how government mandated integration separated the races.  If you can make a case for that,  then I will freely admit that something was badly lacking in my education about all this (sincerely).

Most of our very old cities started with their maps being divided by red lines (thus the term re-lining when referring to illegal mortgage landing and insurance underwriting AFTER the Civil Rights Acts.

Pessy v. Ferguson points out that the Supreme Court put their blessing on laws separating the races.

As recently as the 1950's real estate appraisers still had to comply with standards provided them by the U.S. government. When an appraiser was tasked with doing an appraisal in an area for any form of government mortgage, the appraiser had to evaluate the neighborhood. IF the neighborhood had the "likelihood of being INVADED by a different race or socioeconomic class" the lender could not make the loan. Loans would not be made in neighborhoods were there were more than 5% of the residents of a different race.

The National Association of Realtors Code of Ethics, at the time, prohibited members from showing houses of one race, houses in an area made up predominantly of another race.

It was as bad or worse in Northern cities where they already had neighborhoods broken down into American, Polish, Jewish, German and so forth.

In the late '60's I was in a management training program with a large retailer. I made the bank deposits each day. I would walk down the mall to the bank we used. There was a teller who was simply stunning. She was tall, breathtaking figure, always beautifully dressed and very well spoken. One day I mustered up my courage and asked her out to dinner. She looked at me for a minute then lapsed into a heavy Ebonics dialect and said "if you came to pick me up from my house for a date, my daddy and my brothers would kick your ass from here to Sunday. She was a beautiful black woman. She went back to the speech pattern I was accustomed to her using and said, much as I like you too, maybe we could have lunch in the food court, but we'll never date.

This all goes both ways, anyone who denies it is better one way or the other, has their head up their butts.

Markle wrote:

Bob wrote:I was 15-16 years old when the two Civil Rights Acts were enacted in 64 and 65.   I was old enough to watch it unfold on tv,   and to witness it and talk about it with my peers.  Some of the really staunch resistance to it was right here where I was living.  It forced a culture change like probably no other in my lifetime.  

But I still don't know how the two Civil Rights Acts served to separate the races.

They were passed in 1964 and 1968.

This really isn't that difficult!

Well the bedrock civil rights act was passed in 64,  which we apparently agree on.  That's the one which outlawed racial discrimination in general terms.

But the 65 civil rights act,  the voting rights act,  applied the Constitution to mandate voting rights across races.  And then blacks,  theoretically,  were granted all the important rights we whites had.

Yes the 68 civil rights act helped solidify it,  but that was the "fair housing act".  I guess you could make an argument that housing is as important as voting though.  It sure is today.

Markle,

Maybe it is a little more difficult than your real estate background would tell you.

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:

Bob wrote:I was 15-16 years old when the two Civil Rights Acts were enacted in 64 and 65.   I was old enough to watch it unfold on tv,   and to witness it and talk about it with my peers.  Some of the really staunch resistance to it was right here where I was living.  It forced a culture change like probably no other in my lifetime.  

But I still don't know how the two Civil Rights Acts served to separate the races.

They were passed in 1964 and 1968.

This really isn't that difficult!

Well the bedrock civil rights act was passed in 64,  which we apparently agree on.  That's the one which outlawed racial discrimination in general terms.

But the 65 civil rights act,  the voting rights act,  applied the Constitution to mandate voting rights across races.  And then blacks,  theoretically,  were granted all the important rights we whites had.

Yes the 68 civil rights act helped solidify it,  but that was the "fair housing act".  I guess you could make an argument that housing is as important as voting though.  It sure is today.

That was the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Bob wrote:Markle,

Maybe it is a little more difficult than your real estate background would tell you.  

Hope you learned something, hard to tell!

Come on, markle. At least try to keep up with me. And when you repeat what I posted in the same post you're replying to, that's not making any progress.

And it's also ignoring my question which I've now asked you at least three times. How did all of the sixties' civil rights legislation, taken either separately or together, result in "separating" the races?

The groundbreaking legislation in the sixties is what sustains the Republican Party......originally it was the Republican party who lead the march to Freedom. Now the Republicans are simply Dixiecrats.

Let's go back to square one, bud. This is what you said...

Integration in America would have come about much sooner had GOVERNMENT not stepped in and separated the races...

So how did all those government civil rights laws of the 60's do that?
How did they "separate the races"?

And if there had been no 60's civil rights laws, why would integration have "happened sooner"?

Are you arguing that without the federal intervention, that Bull Connor and George Wallace and Lester Maddox and a thousand others in authority would have let integration happen sooner?
If so then you're more far out there than those geeks at the convention downtown.

Tonight on Bill Mahr......300k in prison in 1970.....today two million. The new Jim Crow........create the highest percentage of minorities in prison.....the drug war was the implements of the new Jim Crow......and who do you think will be fighting decriminalization.

2seaoat wrote:The groundbreaking legislation in the sixties is what sustains the Republican Party......originally it was the Republican party who lead the march to Freedom.   Now the Republicans are simply Dixiecrats.

What a republican was and what a democrat was back then in the south was night and day different from what it is now.
My grandfather was one of the worst racists who ever breathed. And yes he was a democrat. Only because Lincoln had freed the slaves and defeated the confederacy. My grandfather was a prime example of yellow dog democrat. A democrat who was a democrat only because a republican president was the enemy to the confederacy.

But my grandfather was born in the 1880's. That was only 20 years after the Civil War. And he was a product of that age in the south.
However, his six children (my Dad one of them), did not accept those ideas.
Because after they left his household, they learned about new ideas.
So that kind of democrat and republican was a thing of it's time. And it didn't last past my grandfather's generation even though he was close to the beginning of it.

Seaoat, we have within our midst right here in the panhandle an example of the proof positive that ideas about race have changed.

Rev Carl Gallups is the most right-wing bible belt figure you can ever imagine.
He hates obama, he hates queers, he hates liberals, he hates muslims, he hates just about everything and he thinks his god hates all the same stuff he does.

BUT, he also preaches to his audience real racial tolerance. And that black people are equal to white people in every way. And he is actually using a fundamentalist version of the bible to do so.
He represents a real change in racial attitudes. Not just superficial stuff.

Bob wrote:Seaoat,  we have within our midst right here in the panhandle an example of the proof positive that ideas about race have changed.

Rev Carl Gallups is the most right-wing bible belt figure you can ever imagine.
He hates obama,  he hates queers,  he hates liberals,  he hates muslims,  he hates just about everything and he thinks his god hates all the same stuff he does.

BUT,  he also preaches to his audience real racial tolerance.  And that black people are equal to white people in every way.  And he is actually using a fundamentalist version of the bible to do so.
He represents a real change in racial attitudes.  Not just superficial stuff.

Wow big news white people and black people are both people, stop the presses, next thing you are going to tell me is we all like fried chicken, earth shaking...who ever knew that black people had loves, likes, dislikes and dreams just like us white folk...? The times they are a changin...if Obama doesn't divide us up worse than EVER !

It's kind of ironic to hear you mocking him. He and his son are now a radio team. And both have become true devotees of infowars and Alex Jones. It's their primary source of information. lol