Alabama Upholds Segregation

If your heratage includes racism, its a good idea to not celebrate that portion of your heratage.
 
Howey said:
look...WB. I know you live in Alabama. Get out as soon as you can.
Click to expand...

Where would you suggest?

I love living in the south. I love driving down a road and having everyone wave like they know you. I love having people strike up conversations anyplace, again whether they know you or not. I love being on the Univ of Alabama campus on a crips fall day when the Crimson Tide is playing a home game. I love watching the sorority girls on game day go from sweet debutantes to rabid fans in the blink of an eye. I love those occasional 80 degree days in January with a sky so blue it almost hurts to look at it. I love touring the historical places all around down here. I love the smell of southern barbeque (Dreamland Ribs), magnolia blossoms, and honeysuckle. I love a cold beer on the river with old friends. I love going to a gospel singing and hearing the old folks (black and white) rock the house with some Sacred Harp songs. I love tubing on the Cahaba and canoing the Sipsey. I love listening to sweet southern belles talk. I love the fire and strength in the best southern women. I love the music out of Muscle shoals, Nashville and Nawlins. I never miss a chance to see the duck parade at the Peabody Hotel in Memphis. Springtime in Mobile or Savannah is an explosion of color and smells that defies description. I love seeing southern writers gather and read their works.


If you want to judge the south by racism and slavery, knock yourself out. But don't, for a minute, think that is the definition of "southern" or even "Alabamian".
 
Jarod said:
Shockingly he was a very kind and nice man who abandoned segregation and most racism as he aged.
Click to expand...

He was the ultimate politician. I doubt we will ever know what he really felt. He told people what they wanted to hear to get elected.

He stood on the steps of the UofA and tried to stop desegregation, and 4 years later he carried the majority of the black vote.
 
Howey said:
It's no wonder Alabama is considered the most corrupt state in the nation. It's long tradition of racism, bigotry, and payola make Jesus weep. From convicted governors to racist governors to corrupt leaders of the state supreme court (Sue Bell), to state attorney's banning sex toys but diddling male college students (Troy boy King) to governmental payoffs from the Mafia...

the list goes on.




I don't think Dixie has a heart.
Click to expand...

He has a hart its just two sizes too small.
 
WinterBorn said:
He was the ultimate politician. I doubt we will ever know what he really felt. He told people what they wanted to hear to get elected.

He stood on the steps of the UofA and tried to stop desegregation, and 4 years later he carried the majority of the black vote.
Click to expand...

I new him personally.
 
I love being in Auburn on a crisp fall day when the Tigers are playing a home game.
 
Dixie said:
Yes you were caught in another lie, Stringbeans... but I wouldn't keep pointing that out to people. You posted a link to prove your point about the amendment and it proved your point to be incorrect. Now you are in full spin mode, trying to throw out something totally different to distract people with, while you claim "victory" in a thread you were caught lying in. It's time for you to move on and go find another thread to lie in, or start a whole new thread based on another lie, it's up to you! But this one is settled, you were proven to be a liar, the link you posted, refuted your argument, and the debate is over.
Click to expand...

You are the one lying. You do argue with bigots like bravo and I am sure there was some disagreements with I Hate America before he started using a different account. The Secular Alabama group opposed this because it did not remove all of the language of the original amendment used against the children of Alabama. You are a liar. The 2004 amendment would not have granted a right to an education.

Further, I never argued why the people of Alabama opposed this. I argued why you oppose it and you don't live in Alabama. That's just another thing you have lied about.

Nowhere does it say that this is the leading opposition and who knows how much effort they put into defeating it. Maybe, a real resident of Alabama could tell us?

In an e-mail to Ballotpedia, Charles Miller of the Secular Coalition for Alabama spoke for his group and stated opposition to the amendment, saying, "The Secular Coalition for Alabama lobbied in opposition to SB112 because of provisions in the bill that are not included in the ballot language. Specifically, the proposed amendment removes the right to an education for Alabama's children: '..but nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as creating or recognizing any right to education or training at public expense..' To be clear, the no right to education "poison pill" language is a vestige of the Amendment that introduced the racist language in the first place. We want those provisions removed too, since they can still be used against children in Alabama and even to end public education."

....

The 2004 amendment would have removed the italicized language. It would not have guaranteed a right to an education or done anything to authorize any taxes. Obviously, the language does not prevent Alabama from providing a public education as it does so now. It is just there as part of the language used to deny an equal education, as they could then argue that children have no right to an education to begin with. It is very much the same sort of dishonest parsing shitheads like you use to argue that there is no right to marry. You don't think you invented intellectual dishonesty do you?

Secular Alabama, apparently, did not feel comfortable reaffirming that language or maybe they just wanted the entirety of the original removed.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
You are the one lying. You do argue with bigots like bravo and I am sure there was some disagreements with I Hate America before he started using a different account. The Secular Alabama group opposed this because it did not remove all of the language of the original amendment used against the children of Alabama. You are a liar. The 2004 amendment would not have granted a right to an education.
Click to expand...

I haven't lied about anything. You have.

Further, I never argued why the people of Alabama opposed this. I argued why you oppose it and you don't live in Alabama. That's just another thing you have lied about.
Click to expand...

I do live in Alabama, I don't know why you believe I live somewhere else. I have lived in Georgia and Mississippi for a bit, and was in Iraq a few months, but I do live in Alabama. No you didn't argue why, did you? You stated quite matter-of-factually, why YOU THOUGHT they voted for it, but you've yet to support that with anything other than your opinion. The link you provided, supports my argument that the amendment is about constitutionality of education, and that is for the purpose of a school tax, as I also pointed out. So, no Stringy, I have not been the one lying here, it has been totally you who has lied. You continue to maintain this amendment was about racist people wanting to keep segregationist-era language in the constitution, for when we get enough states rights judges to overturn Jim Crow and Desegregation laws! You are out in left field la-la-land on that one, and you've again, not supported your argument with ANYTHING!

Nowhere does it say that this is the leading opposition and who knows how much effort they put into defeating it. Maybe, a real resident of Alabama could tell us?
Click to expand...

Your original link is Ballotpedia, a wiki-style site for ballot initiatives. It indicates http://www.secularal.org/ as the "opposition" view. I was opposed to the amendment, but not for their reason. I presume a lot of people were opposed for different reasons, the measure failed. It's up to YOU to prove this was about racists who wanted to hang on to segregation, and you've not presented that.

In an e-mail to Ballotpedia, Charles Miller of the Secular Coalition for Alabama spoke for his group and stated opposition to the amendment, saying, "The Secular Coalition for Alabama lobbied in opposition to SB112 because of provisions in the bill that are not included in the ballot language. Specifically, the proposed amendment removes the right to an education for Alabama's children: '..but nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as creating or recognizing any right to education or training at public expense..' To be clear, the no right to education "poison pill" language is a vestige of the Amendment that introduced the racist language in the first place. We want those provisions removed too, since they can still be used against children in Alabama and even to end public education."
Click to expand...

Again, you are posting information refuting your argument this was about racists who wanted to keep segregation. Do you think that is what Charles Miller is saying here? Because it doesn't sound like he's saying that to me. Sounds to me like the important thing to Mr. Miller and his group, is the 'constitutional right to an education' language. (That would be MY argument, not YOURS)

Generally speaking, in debate, it's best to post information to support your own argument, and not that of your opponent.
It's particularly not a good idea to do it multiple times, which you've now done. I've tried to tell you that you need to drop this and move on to some other lie, but you won't listen, you insist on doubling down here, and I'm running out of room on my wall to mount chunks of your ass. Either start posting some information to support your original argument, or shut the hell up!

The 2004 amendment would have removed the italicized language. It would not have guaranteed a right to an education or done anything to authorize any taxes. Obviously, the language does not prevent Alabama from providing a public education as it does so now. It is just there as part of the language used to deny an equal education, as they could then argue that children have no right to an education to begin with. It is very much the same sort of dishonest parsing shitheads like you use to argue that there is no right to marry. You don't think you invented intellectual dishonesty do you?

Secular Alabama, apparently, did not feel comfortable reaffirming that language or maybe they just wanted the entirety of the original removed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, apparently, Secular Alabama isn't a racist hate group wanting to keep segregationist-era language in the constitution, as you originally claimed was the case. That's the IMPORTANT aspect we need to remember here. We also need to remember, Secular Alabama articulates an argument surrounding constitutionality of education, which is the argument I presented as well. I even gave you a background of how this all started, and why. It's about the state legislature trying to get the constitutional power to levy a school tax. If they can do that, then they might be able to balance the general budget, where education is currently paid from. Nothing has anything to do with educating children or segregation. It is about the state's constitutional authority to implement a school tax. Currently, they can't.

There is nothing to parse, nothing to be dishonest about, and the very links you've provided, supports every word I've said. I've not even had to post anything here, you've done a splendid job of posting quotes from Mr. Miller of Secular Alabama, to prove your argument invalid and validate my argument. I do thank you for doing that, but please stop now, I don't have room for more of your ass on my wall! I'm going to have to start sending chunks to bravo to put in the Conservative Man Cave! So stop it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top