sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
I believe that "flesh" is the word you were looking for,
With some it's definitely flush......lol...
but yea that is what I meant good catch.
I believe that "flesh" is the word you were looking for,
Ahhhh, the blind support of government by one of its agents, and one of its blind worshipers.
Premise: Government must exist in some form.
Premise: Government is inherently evil, since at its core it relies on coercive power.
Conclusion: Therefore those subjected to its power must be ever vigilant and fight against the inevitable abuses.
That's kind of the stuff America was founded on.
Sometimes I like to take a counter position just for the sake of argument.... Especially if a thread is full of only one opinion.
Sounds "trollish" to me.
Not really.....
troll; One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
LOL you are dense, you continue to deny actual history while accusing me of denying history? I just posted a newspaper article from the 1960s that supports the point I made, go read a book or two, in fact go talk to Sudden valley gunner if you don't believe me, he'll tell you the exact same thing. At least I think he would judging by another discussion we had several months ago
And the whites only drinking fountains existed due to mandates. Most people wouldn't otherwise spend the money to make that many sets of everything.
If the government installs the drinking fountain, it belongs to the public, if a private business installs one they should be able to set whatever rules they want,....
+1 That means being vigilant against people like him and he don't like that. So he will do all he can to paint liberty minded people as bad as possible.
EMN has a point, a surprising one at that due to his usual government is the answer viewpoints, but of course he seems to hate the south.
As Walter Williams brought out there was a reason there were Jim Crow laws, becuase not all of the people were acting like racist bigots and were selling and exchanging with people who were not thier skin color. So it took the state to enforce a mandatory bigotry (many of the laws were borrowed from an existing practice like Lincoln's home state of Illinois). As we can see from many of the "its the law" types here who will blindly follow and believe its moral to obey something just becuase its law, it appears that it entrenched culturally a horrible wrong doing, that may have ended much further in a free market society.
If I respectfully requested you not to my house would keep coming until i escalated the situation?
A request is all that should be needed.
They went so far as to male a national statement they dong want us there. So if people see us there then we look like jack a**es who refuse to abide a request.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Don't be willfully obtuse. Your post, as you might recall:
Must Soviets didn't participate in the rounding up of political dissidents and ethnic minorities. Most Chinese don't participate in the disappearance of protestors. Most Germans didn't staff concentration camps. Hell, most Southerners (much less American colonists in general) didn't own slaves. These are excuses for nothing.
The actions of despotic and tyrannical governments are never taken in isolation from the societies that birth them. That the ubiquitous racism in the post-Colonial South was codified into segregationist law only highlights the ubiquity and vehemence of that racism. Only a great ignoramus could conclude from statutory segregation mandates that, but for those mandates, the phenomenon would not have existed, or would have been minimal. Race-restricted drinking fountains predated those mandates. There was no popular outcry by whites in the South against out-of-touch, overbearing government. The society of the time created, coddled, and encouraged the political will that resulted in Jim Crow laws. George Wallace was one of the foremost advocates of segregation in the 60s and 70s, and he was elected governor of Alabama twice.
Especially in democracies, it is absurd to assert that a society is not the origin of the horrific policies of its government. Your claims demonstrate your naivete-turned-ignorance. Whites-only drinking fountains, and segregation more generally, existed because they were a manifestation of the collected mindset and will of the people of the South. Glibly dismissing them as the happenstance of statute, as if society weren't complicit, as if the utter hatred of blacks so prevalent among whites in segregationist states weren't sufficient to drive people against their financial interests, shows how thoroughly you disregard reality. You can't proof-text your way out of being a complete fool.
Not remotely true but dramatic as usual.
I support your liberty to be a drama queen
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Nothing Erik stated follows from this. Not one thing.
And Jim Crow laws didn't entrench racism; they manifested and magnified it.
Calm Down.
Don't be willfully obtuse. Your post, as you might recall:
Must Soviets didn't participate in the rounding up of political dissidents and ethnic minorities. Most Chinese don't participate in the disappearance of protestors. Most Germans didn't staff concentration camps. Hell, most Southerners (much less American colonists in general) didn't own slaves. These are excuses for nothing.
The actions of despotic and tyrannical governments are never taken in isolation from the societies that birth them. That the ubiquitous racism in the post-Colonial South was codified into segregationist law only highlights the ubiquity and vehemence of that racism. Only a great ignoramus could conclude from statutory segregation mandates that, but for those mandates, the phenomenon would not have existed, or would have been minimal. Race-restricted drinking fountains predated those mandates. There was no popular outcry by whites in the South against out-of-touch, overbearing government. The society of the time created, coddled, and encouraged the political will that resulted in Jim Crow laws. George Wallace was one of the foremost advocates of segregation in the 60s and 70s, and he was elected governor of Alabama twice.
Especially in democracies, it is absurd to assert that a society is not the origin of the horrific policies of its government. Your claims demonstrate your naivete-turned-ignorance. Whites-only drinking fountains, and segregation more generally, existed because they were a manifestation of the collected mindset and will of the people of the South. Glibly dismissing them as the happenstance of statute, as if society weren't complicit, as if the utter hatred of blacks so prevalent among whites in segregationist states weren't sufficient to drive people against their financial interests, shows how thoroughly you disregard reality. You can't proof-text your way out of being a complete fool.
finally check out Milgram's infamous experiment where quote: Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" The experiments have been repeated many times in the following years with consistent results within differing societies. unquote. bottom line: "...65 percent of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock..." "None of the participants who refused to administer the final shocks insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim without requesting permission to leave, as per Milgram's notes and recollections..." ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
And FB can manipulate elections by determining what shows up in FB user feeds.
And FB wants unfettered immigration.
So who is to blame when we get it? The voters, or FB?
http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...emotions-and-make-us-vote-what-else-can-it-do
You have absolutely no idea what the "South" is or how the "southern culture" came to be what it is today. You are allowing your schooling interfere with your education.<snip>
I also do not hate the south, I do not root for them in the historical discussions of the civil war, not the same thing. I also do not think we would've benefited from having a separate slave country right to our immediate south..... Almost ironically, I think we'd be complaining about illegal immigrants from the south in a whole separate way if we allowed them to secede, slave economies have a tendency to not benefit most of everyone except an extreme upper class....
According to my Grand Daddy Jim Crow laws were pay back for yankees coming down here and "putting all sorts of crazy ideas in the heads of perfectly normal colored folk." My own personal experience, from growing up in the 60s, in the south, black folks were not as oppressed as you would like to think they were. In fact, they are less "empowered" today than they were when I was a kid.Calm Down.
<snip>
You have absolutely no idea what the "South" is or how the "southern culture" came to be what it is today. You are allowing your schooling interfere with your education.
Google "life on a southern plantation" and read. You are quite free to cheery pick the "sources" displayed to you as a result of your search.....your "world view" may be in peril though.
According to my Grand Daddy Jim Crow laws were pay back for yankees coming down here and "putting all sorts of crazy ideas in the heads of perfectly normal colored folk." My own personal experience, from growing up in the 60s, in the south, black folks were not as oppressed as you would like to think they were. In fact, they are less "empowered" today than they were when I was a kid.
It is entertaining to read yankees discussing how life was, is, and should have been, in the south.
^^^^^^^^^^^
QFR
Can't tell if this is serious or satire......
The only thing that is serious about my post is the opening statement.^^^^^^^^^^^
QFR
Can't tell if this is serious or satire......
The rest, well, it had ya thinking one way or the other which proves my point, you have no idea about the "south" and "southerners."You have absolutely no idea what the "South" is or how the "southern culture" came to be what it is today.
You have absolutely no idea what the "South" is or how the "southern culture" came to be what it is today. You are allowing your schooling interfere with your education.
Google "life on a southern plantation" and read. You are quite free to cheery pick the "sources" displayed to you as a result of your search.....your "world view" may be in peril though.
According to my Grand Daddy Jim Crow laws were pay back for yankees coming down here and "putting all sorts of crazy ideas in the heads of perfectly normal colored folk." My own personal experience, from growing up in the 60s, in the south, black folks were not as oppressed as you would like to think they were. In fact, they are less "empowered" today than they were when I was a kid.
It is entertaining to read yankees discussing how life was, is, and should have been, in the south.
Confused? You are being very accommodating to yankees.A lot of people are confused about southern culture, it is true that AA are in more peril today then they were in the 60's. I also grew up in that time period. BUT something that the south is very different from the Racist Yankees is that we live together in the south. You will not see small towns devoid of African Americans, even the country it is a mix of ethnicity. Black people that grew up here are mostly respectful good people, compare that with the children of transplanted yankees (military brats) and the pure vile hatred for whites shows it's colors.
Jim Crow laws were written by the NRA, Yankees!
^^^^^^^^^^^
QFR
Can't tell if this is serious or satire......