Freedom is really not applicable to Christian businesses!

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I've never understood why someone would go to a food service business, knowing they are not wanted, and demand to be served. You're basically begging for a spit and pubes sandwich.

I do understand why we don't narrowly define (whittle away, if you will) 1st amendment rights. Sorry, the KKK can have their sophomoric parade and the Phelps klan can verbally crap on soon to be graves. If one bad person doesn't want to serve cake to a gay, so be it. If the bartender at Buddy's refuses to serve a priest, wgaf.

Comparing this law to segregation is rough ridin' insane. It's stupid legislation, no doubt. But don't allow yourself to become so misinformed you think this is a license to shun guys from society. All of this is the overreaction to the gross overreach and abuse of democratic process that is the Obama administration. We should all be embarrassed and frightened by both  sides at this juncture.

[sonofdaxjones]

cRusty 

[ednksu]

Its been interesting reading these last couple pages with KSU and Fake jerking each other off with Dax occasionally applying some spit to keep things moving. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Its been interesting reading these last couple pages with KSU and Fake jerking each other off with Dax occasionally applying some spit to keep things moving.

Oh look, a gay joke. How clever.
#bigotsgonnabigot

[ednksu]

Its been interesting reading these last couple pages with KSU and Fake jerking each other off with Dax occasionally applying some spit to keep things moving.

Oh look, a gay joke. How clever.
#bigotsgonnabigot

Who said it was a joke?  Much like this law, you're enforcing your own personal bias on statements, altering their true meaning.

[HerrSonntag]

Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best.  Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.   
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms.  Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.

LOL

Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it.  I mean, read a book.

That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.

lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.

Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country.  The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.

Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.

In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong.  Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act.  Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.

THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER

I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof?  I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64.  Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s. 

I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.

There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to.  Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law)  it takes time.  It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.

This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen.  I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner).  The South was not going to change.  These people are not going to change.  The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.

The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens.  There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.

I'd still contest that you're ignoring a large portion of history.  What made the South different from the rest of the country?  Were the people down there just slanty-foreheaded Neanderthals who were simply too obtuse to understand the direction of the rest of the country?  No, the racist cesspool that was the American deep south was propped up by laws.  Jim Crow laws (Federally approved via Plessy v. Ferguson) held back progress in the South.  They didn't need overreaching and blunt Civil Rights laws to fix that, they needed to appeal the racist laws that supported it. 
Laws fixing laws.  This is why the best place to talk about these issues is in changing the hearts and minds of others, not tossing around laws at the end of a gun.  The civil disobedience, boycotts, and marches of the civil rights era and today do and did far more to advance tolerance in our society than pointy haired bureaucrats do from atop their pedestals.

[ednksu]

Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best.  Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.   
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms.  Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.

LOL

Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it.  I mean, read a book.

That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.

lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.

Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country.  The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.

Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.

In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong.  Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act.  Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.

THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER

I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof?  I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64.  Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s. 

I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.

There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to.  Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law)  it takes time.  It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.

This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen.  I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner).  The South was not going to change.  These people are not going to change.  The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.

The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens.  There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.

I'd still contest that you're ignoring a large portion of history.  What made the South different from the rest of the country?  Were the people down there just slanty-foreheaded Neanderthals who were simply too obtuse to understand the direction of the rest of the country?  No, the racist cesspool that was the American deep south was propped up by laws.  Jim Crow laws (Federally approved via Plessy v. Ferguson) held back progress in the South.  They didn't need overreaching and blunt Civil Rights laws to fix that, they needed to appeal the racist laws that supported it. 
Laws fixing laws.  This is why the best place to talk about these issues is in changing the hearts and minds of others, not tossing around laws at the end of a gun.  The civil disobedience, boycotts, and marches of the civil rights era and today do and did far more to advance tolerance in our society than pointy haired bureaucrats do from atop their pedestals.

I'm done with this.  Its clear that you're basing your arguments on some extremely flawed assumptions about what chattle slavery was (hint is was in no way an economic construct which your position by definition relies on) and the constructs of racial Southern society.  There was no economic force that was going to change the deep south.  There was no force other than radical reconstruction, dormant under jim crow, progressed under the civil rights movement, and arguably left to this day unfinished.  If you want to start comparing books we've read on the South, reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and Southern historical memory, we can.  I don't think you'll like what you'll find.  Because your perpetual use of "revisionist history" as an attack on scholarship clearly shows you have a lot of reading to do.  There is a reason why Eric Foner, one of the most mild mannered historians broke out with uncontrolled laughter when Napaolatano tried to use this market forces bullshit to attack Lincoln and his course of action in the Civil War.   Monolithic race constructs cannot be controlled by economic forces because they are the the fundamental drivers of those economics.  Please read some of the history about the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.  Please read about the methods used by SNCC.  Whats clearly lacking in your scholarship is that these issues were not in vacuums of progress but rather heavily interrelated and dependent on one another.  Most often legal precedents were carefully constructed to allow the conversation to begin and allow civil action, resulting in more legal action.  You keep mentioning boycotts as an example, but you fail to realize the totality of the circumstances involved.  The bus boycott for example wasn't just Rosa --> Bus Boycotts --> Freedom Rides-->lets all sit together on Greyhounds!  There was a careful, planned approach, which was built on legal action which started in the 40s. 

If you seriously have questions PM or start a new thread and we can talk about the literature of a racialized South.  If you want I can tell you which Profs at K-State are experts in various aspects of Southern study. 

[SdK]

Why is calling someone Edna cool? Seems as stupid as beems calling dax daxi pad. Can't we move past namecalling? Can't we love one another?

[ednksu]

Oh look trusted news source Daily Caller who says its about religious freedom say:
"The new language will prevent RFRA from being used broadly to discriminate against gay people and may make it more difficult for businesses like florists and bakers to argue a burden on their religion."

So why would a florist or baker need to deny anyone service?

Oh look people who lobbied for the law say its about discriminating against the LGBT community:
"Advance America, a conservative group that lobbied for the original RFRA, said in a blog post that the update would destroy the law.

“Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government!” the group said."
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/02/indiana-republicans-totally-cave-on-religious-freedom-law/




JFC you people are a joke.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

That is an incoherent stream of consciousness that only the truly deranged and obsessive possess.  We're talking news clippings psychotically connected with yarn and push pins, paranoid schizophrenia, clock tower gunman crap right there.

It's not just poorly written garbage, that would be an excuse, it's truly crazy.  Goodness gracious.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

That is an incoherent stream of consciousness that only the truly deranged and obsessive possess.  We're talking news clippings psychotically connected with yarn and push pins, paranoid schizophrenia, clock tower gunman crap right there.

It's not just poorly written garbage, that would be an excuse, it's truly crazy.  Goodness gracious.

Plus the gay slurs. An Edna meltdown is not pretty. All this over a law of neutral application that simply codifies the balancing test for the courts.

[star seed 7]

Why do these people feel the need to discriminate against harmless activities? I thought God was supposed to judge you, not man. Just shows christian hypocrisy

[HerrSonntag]

Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best.  Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.   
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms.  Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.

LOL

Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it.  I mean, read a book.

That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.

lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.

Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country.  The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.

Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.

In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong.  Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act.  Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.

THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER

I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof?  I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64.  Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s. 

I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.

There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to.  Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law)  it takes time.  It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.

This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen.  I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner).  The South was not going to change.  These people are not going to change.  The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.

The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens.  There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.

I'd still contest that you're ignoring a large portion of history.  What made the South different from the rest of the country?  Were the people down there just slanty-foreheaded Neanderthals who were simply too obtuse to understand the direction of the rest of the country?  No, the racist cesspool that was the American deep south was propped up by laws.  Jim Crow laws (Federally approved via Plessy v. Ferguson) held back progress in the South.  They didn't need overreaching and blunt Civil Rights laws to fix that, they needed to appeal the racist laws that supported it. 
Laws fixing laws.  This is why the best place to talk about these issues is in changing the hearts and minds of others, not tossing around laws at the end of a gun.  The civil disobedience, boycotts, and marches of the civil rights era and today do and did far more to advance tolerance in our society than pointy haired bureaucrats do from atop their pedestals.

I'm done with this.  Its clear that you're basing your arguments on some extremely flawed assumptions about what chattle slavery was (hint is was in no way an economic construct which your position by definition relies on) and the constructs of racial Southern society.  There was no economic force that was going to change the deep south.  There was no force other than radical reconstruction, dormant under jim crow, progressed under the civil rights movement, and arguably left to this day unfinished.  If you want to start comparing books we've read on the South, reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and Southern historical memory, we can.  I don't think you'll like what you'll find.  Because your perpetual use of "revisionist history" as an attack on scholarship clearly shows you have a lot of reading to do.  There is a reason why Eric Foner, one of the most mild mannered historians broke out with uncontrolled laughter when Napaolatano tried to use this market forces bullshit to attack Lincoln and his course of action in the Civil War.   Monolithic race constructs cannot be controlled by economic forces because they are the the fundamental drivers of those economics.  Please read some of the history about the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.  Please read about the methods used by SNCC.  Whats clearly lacking in your scholarship is that these issues were not in vacuums of progress but rather heavily interrelated and dependent on one another.  Most often legal precedents were carefully constructed to allow the conversation to begin and allow civil action, resulting in more legal action.  You keep mentioning boycotts as an example, but you fail to realize the totality of the circumstances involved.  The bus boycott for example wasn't just Rosa --> Bus Boycotts --> Freedom Rides-->lets all sit together on Greyhounds!  There was a careful, planned approach, which was built on legal action which started in the 40s. 

If you seriously have questions PM or start a new thread and we can talk about the literature of a racialized South.  If you want I can tell you which Profs at K-State are experts in various aspects of Southern study.

You can prattle on about slavery and repealing laws being the same thing as creating laws but that doesn't change the fact at hand.   Passing new laws forcing people to be tolerant isn't a wide step away from being as bad a law as the ones forcing intolerance they were fighting against.  The early civil rights movement had its start in challenging unjust laws as you mentioned, a noble and right pursuit.  Congress passed the civil rights act AFTER much of the work had already been done repealing Jim Crow laws and creating a diaolog across the country.  Consequently, as you admitted earlier, the civil rights act calloused many and did more harm than good.  The fact is the voluntary forces of the market and free speech do a great deal more for the advancement of oppressed people than one could ever legislate into being.

And if you're referring to Lou Williams, I took her HIST555 class as an undergrad, not a fan.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why do these people feel the need to discriminate against harmless activities? I thought God was supposed to judge you, not man. Just shows christian hypocrisy

As a Christian, it blows my mind, too.

[ednksu]

Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best.  Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.   
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms.  Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.

LOL

Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it.  I mean, read a book.

That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.

lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.

Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country.  The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.

Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.

In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong.  Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act.  Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.

THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER

I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof?  I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64.  Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s. 

I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.

There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to.  Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law)  it takes time.  It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.

This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen.  I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner).  The South was not going to change.  These people are not going to change.  The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.

The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens.  There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.

I'd still contest that you're ignoring a large portion of history.  What made the South different from the rest of the country?  Were the people down there just slanty-foreheaded Neanderthals who were simply too obtuse to understand the direction of the rest of the country?  No, the racist cesspool that was the American deep south was propped up by laws.  Jim Crow laws (Federally approved via Plessy v. Ferguson) held back progress in the South.  They didn't need overreaching and blunt Civil Rights laws to fix that, they needed to appeal the racist laws that supported it. 
Laws fixing laws.  This is why the best place to talk about these issues is in changing the hearts and minds of others, not tossing around laws at the end of a gun.  The civil disobedience, boycotts, and marches of the civil rights era and today do and did far more to advance tolerance in our society than pointy haired bureaucrats do from atop their pedestals.

I'm done with this.  Its clear that you're basing your arguments on some extremely flawed assumptions about what chattle slavery was (hint is was in no way an economic construct which your position by definition relies on) and the constructs of racial Southern society.  There was no economic force that was going to change the deep south.  There was no force other than radical reconstruction, dormant under jim crow, progressed under the civil rights movement, and arguably left to this day unfinished.  If you want to start comparing books we've read on the South, reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and Southern historical memory, we can.  I don't think you'll like what you'll find.  Because your perpetual use of "revisionist history" as an attack on scholarship clearly shows you have a lot of reading to do.  There is a reason why Eric Foner, one of the most mild mannered historians broke out with uncontrolled laughter when Napaolatano tried to use this market forces bullshit to attack Lincoln and his course of action in the Civil War.   Monolithic race constructs cannot be controlled by economic forces because they are the the fundamental drivers of those economics.  Please read some of the history about the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.  Please read about the methods used by SNCC.  Whats clearly lacking in your scholarship is that these issues were not in vacuums of progress but rather heavily interrelated and dependent on one another.  Most often legal precedents were carefully constructed to allow the conversation to begin and allow civil action, resulting in more legal action.  You keep mentioning boycotts as an example, but you fail to realize the totality of the circumstances involved.  The bus boycott for example wasn't just Rosa --> Bus Boycotts --> Freedom Rides-->lets all sit together on Greyhounds!  There was a careful, planned approach, which was built on legal action which started in the 40s. 

If you seriously have questions PM or start a new thread and we can talk about the literature of a racialized South.  If you want I can tell you which Profs at K-State are experts in various aspects of Southern study.

You can prattle on about slavery and repealing laws being the same thing as creating laws but that doesn't change the fact at hand.   Passing new laws forcing people to be tolerant isn't a wide step away from being as bad a law as the ones forcing intolerance they were fighting against.  The early civil rights movement had its start in challenging unjust laws as you mentioned, a noble and right pursuit.  Congress passed the civil rights act AFTER much of the work had already been done repealing Jim Crow laws and creating a diaolog across the country.  Consequently, as you admitted earlier, the civil rights act calloused many and did more harm than good.  The fact is the voluntary forces of the market and free speech do a great deal more for the advancement of oppressed people than one could ever legislate into being.

And if you're referring to Lou Williams, I took her HIST555 class as an undergrad, not a fan.

Yeah its clear that you want to remain ignorant on the topic.  You clearly have no interest in understanding how laws were constructed in the South and how they required Federal action to destroy them.  If you're actually believe that passing laws protecting people from lynching, burning, and enforcing their fundamental American civil rights then you have totally lost the fundamental points of the Civil Rights movement.  Its clear that you have done no research and have only pandered to poorly constructed, poorly researched, poorly ethos-ed agenda driven political points to explain complex events in American history. 

Another respected voice on the topic, David Blight who closes this video on point. Because I'm sure Dr. King was over reacting asking for a presidential proclamation, a second Emancipation Proclamation, to end their plight.



(And I can see why you didn't like Dr Wililams' class. Too much historical scholarship undoing your preconceptions. You should stay away from Dr. Sanders too as he wont give you a 'bless your heart' before telling you how wrong you are.)

[AppleJack]

Does anyone have any questions for me on this topic?

[HerrSonntag]

[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]

Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"

All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.

I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History.  To each their own.

[michigancat]

Does anyone have any questions for me on this topic?

wasn't the north still pretty racist in the 60's?

[AppleJack]

Does anyone have any questions for me on this topic?

wasn't the north still pretty racist in the 60's?

I'll say yes.

[ednksu]

[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]

Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"

All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.

I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History.  To each their own.

Stop and think about what you just said.  The Civil Right(s) (I also assume you mean 1964) act was a bad law.  I mean stop and think about that.  There is a reason why its considered one of the greatest, most necessary pieces of American legal process. 

[HerrSonntag]

[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]

Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"

All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.

I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History.  To each their own.

Stop and think about what you just said.  The Civil Right(s) (I also assume you mean 1964) act was a bad law.  I mean stop and think about that.  There is a reason why its considered one of the greatest, most necessary pieces of American legal process.

It was bad in the sense that it was root canal surgery with a sledgehammer.  The provisions in the act, as they relate today, fundamentally changed the role of private property and freedom of association negatively and outside the scope of civil rights in ways still felt today. 

[ednksu]

[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]

Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"

All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.

I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History.  To each their own.

Stop and think about what you just said.  The Civil Right(s) (I also assume you mean 1964) act was a bad law.  I mean stop and think about that.  There is a reason why its considered one of the greatest, most necessary pieces of American legal process.

It was bad in the sense that it was root canal surgery with a sledgehammer.  The provisions in the act, as they relate today, fundamentally changed the role of private property and freedom of association negatively and outside the scope of civil rights in ways still felt today.

Look you have no position, material, or evidence to posit forth. I mean its clear that you don't want to engage in a real discussion on the issue. You only have your ideas borrowed from bankrupt neo libertarians who live in a fantasy world grounding in an idealized false history. 
Because guess what, you need a sledge hammer to smash the society which allows people to be lynched and buses burned.  You need a sledge hammer to bludgeon states who wouldn't prosecute suspects in the name of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner.  You cannot move that society without the pen and the bayonet.  If your position had an validity it would not have taken 100 years and a sledge hammer, as you describe, to cause this movement.

[HerrSonntag]

[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]

Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"

All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.

I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History.  To each their own.

Stop and think about what you just said.  The Civil Right(s) (I also assume you mean 1964) act was a bad law.  I mean stop and think about that.  There is a reason why its considered one of the greatest, most necessary pieces of American legal process.

It was bad in the sense that it was root canal surgery with a sledgehammer.  The provisions in the act, as they relate today, fundamentally changed the role of private property and freedom of association negatively and outside the scope of civil rights in ways still felt today.

Look you have no position, material, or evidence to posit forth. I mean its clear that you don't want to engage in a real discussion on the issue. You only have your ideas borrowed from bankrupt neo libertarians who live in a fantasy world grounding in an idealized false history. 
Because guess what, you need a sledge hammer to smash the society which allows people to be lynched and buses burned.  You need a sledge hammer to bludgeon states who wouldn't prosecute suspects in the name of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner.  You cannot move that society without the pen and the bayonet.  If your position had an validity it would not have taken 100 years and a sledge hammer, as you describe, to cause this movement.

And you're coming from some grand pedigree of author name-drop and youtube-link fame?  We're posting on a bbs, in not going to pretend to come from some position of authority to win my arguments.
Jim Crow laws propped up the atrocities you named. The pen and bayonet did that.  You win hearts and minds with reason and voluntary action, not force.

[ednksu]

People, only post articles from EDN pre-approved sources.   

Looks like the legislation is going to be amended, it seems enough death/bomb/bodily harm threats have been called into Christians revolving around hypothetical situations that would likely never occur have won the day.   Analogies to water cannons/separate drinking fountains/lynchings/back of the bus etc. etc. still ongoing and as always, absolutely deplorable.

Okay D-A-X-W, because just spouting off with no evidence to counter someone point to specific experts on the issue is totally legit in a discussion. 


Are you sure you aren't in high school?

[AppleJack]

this edn person is a real nutcase.