Segregation now, segregation forever!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement;

If that is not a law providing for desegregation, I dont know what is!!!

Well then, I guess you don't know what is, because that law says nothing about segregation or desegregation. Sorry! But thanks for admitting you don't know what is, that takes a big person!

In the hopes that maybe you will become educated on this, let me explain it to you... this act, and other similar acts passed around the same time, were actually used as the basis FOR segregation! You will notice, the law you keep posting, says not one thing about separating blacks from whites. It maintains they must share "equal enjoyment" of the facilities, etc. Segregationist mantra was "separate but equal" and this law is the reason the mantra even included "but equal." If not for CRA 1875, the mantra would have been "separate, and we don't give a shit if it's equal!" It's because the law mandated that blacks be given "equal access" that segregationists included "equality" in their separation of blacks and whites. The law doesn't state they must share the same facilities (integration), it facilitates the concept of "separate but equal" precisely because it doesn't stipulate this.

In fact, no law stipulated that segregation wasn't legal, that is why it prevailed as the "norm" in America for nearly another century. In the landmark legal cases which brought down segregation, the main legal point established and acknowledged by the court in finding, was the fact that segregation often didn't provide "equal" at all, and therefore, violated the CRA of 1875, and the only way to remedy this was "desegregation." That is the first time "desegregation" is used as a term in America. In 1875, there was no such thing as "segregation" or "desegregation" because the terms simply didn't exist. Had you asked the man on the street in 1875, he would have said... "desegre-what?" Segregating was essentially white people's answer to the law, because the law (the one you're posting) doesn't stipulate that facilities and accommodations can't be separate (segregated).

Jarhead... you have officially been schooled!

 

[Jarod]

Well then, I guess you don't know what is, because that law says nothing about segregation or desegregation. Sorry! But thanks for admitting you don't know what is, that takes a big person!

In the hopes that maybe you will become educated on this, let me explain it to you... this act, and other similar acts passed around the same time, were actually used as the basis FOR segregation! You will notice, the law you keep posting, says not one thing about separating blacks from whites. It maintains they must share "equal enjoyment" of the facilities, etc. Segregationist mantra was "separate but equal" and this law is the reason the mantra even included "but equal." If not for CRA 1875, the mantra would have been "separate, and we don't give a shit if it's equal!" It's because the law mandated that blacks be given "equal access" that segregationists included "equality" in their separation of blacks and whites. The law doesn't state they must share the same facilities (integration), it facilitates the concept of "separate but equal" precisely because it doesn't stipulate this.

In fact, no law stipulated that segregation wasn't legal, that is why it prevailed as the "norm" in America for nearly another century. In the landmark legal cases which brought down segregation, the main legal point established and acknowledged by the court in finding, was the fact that segregation often didn't provide "equal" at all, and therefore, violated the CRA of 1875, and the only way to remedy this was "desegregation." That is the first time "desegregation" is used as a term in America. In 1875, there was no such thing as "segregation" or "desegregation" because the terms simply didn't exist. Had you asked the man on the street in 1875, he would have said... "desegre-what?" Segregating was essentially white people's answer to the law, because the law (the one you're posting) doesn't stipulate that facilities and accommodations can't be separate (segregated).

Jarhead... you have officially been schooled!

The phrase "seperate but equal" was not used until Brown V. Board of Education and was a convaluted attempt to get around laws like this and the 14th Amendmend. THe law clearly says they cant be sepperate, it says that they should have equal access to facilities. Equal is not seperate!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The phrase "seperate but equal" was not used until Brown V. Board of Education and was a convaluted attempt to get around laws like this and the 14th Amendmend. THe law clearly says they cant be sepperate, it says that they should have equal access to facilities. Equal is not seperate!

WHERE DOES THE LAW YOU POSTED SAY THAT????

 

[Jarod]

all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement

Stop being so obtuse!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement

Stop being so obtuse!

Again.... you have not posted where it says anything about segregation or desegregation! "Full and equal" does not indicate it can't be separate from the white folk! Now, yes... in 1964, when they eventually passed the CRA 1964, this WAS clarified, but we can't go forward in time and apply a courts finding in 1964 to the law as interpreted in 1875, it just defies logic. If that's the case, I could argue that we've already outlawed abortion because in 2050, the SCOTUS will rule that unborn babies have Constitutional rights!

No one is being obtuse, this is a matter of fact. In 1875, segregation was NOT outlawed! That was your claim, and you are WRONG!

 

[Jarod]

Again.... you have not posted where it says anything about segregation or desegregation! "Full and equal" does not indicate it can't be separate from the white folk! Now, yes... in 1964, when they eventually passed the CRA 1964, this WAS clarified, but we can't go forward in time and apply a courts finding in 1964 to the law as interpreted in 1875, it just defies logic. If that's the case, I could argue that we've already outlawed abortion because in 2050, the SCOTUS will rule that unborn babies have Constitutional rights!

No one is being obtuse, this is a matter of fact. In 1875, segregation was NOT outlawed! That was your claim, and you are WRONG!

How can full and equal access be sepperate? Full means FULL....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How can full and equal access be sepperate? Full means FULL....

FULL means FULL... not desegregated!

 

[Jarod]

How can full access by everyone mean anything but desegerated?


I keep this thread going not because I have any illusions of getting you to admit you are wrong, but to illistrate to anyone else reading it to see what a whack conservatives can be!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How can full access by everyone mean anything but desegerated?


I keep this thread going not because I have any illusions of getting you to admit you are wrong, but to illistrate to anyone else reading it to see what a whack conservatives can be!

This doesn't have a thing to do with conservatism or liberalism, it is basic common sense, as I said earlier. The terms "segregation" and "desegregation" were not in existence in 1875, so it is impossible that the Congress passed a law regarding it.

To answer your willful ignorance... Everyone has "full access" to a restroom at Walmart, but men and women do not share the SAME facility! Can you not understand where they are two distinctly different things?

 

[Jarod]

This doesn't have a thing to do with conservatism or liberalism, it is basic common sense, as I said earlier. The terms "segregation" and "desegregation" were not in existence in 1875, so it is impossible that the Congress passed a law regarding it.

To answer your willful ignorance... Everyone has "full access" to a restroom at Walmart, but men and women do not share the SAME facility! Can you not understand where they are two distinctly different things?

If I had full access to THE restrooms in WallMArt I could go into the womans or mens.

Just because a word is not developed until later... does not mean it cant be outlawed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If I had full access to THE restrooms in WallMArt I could go into the womans or mens.

Just because a word is not developed until later... does not mean it cant be outlawed.

Well idiot, yes it does mean that! You can't outlaw something that doesn't yet exist! What kind of shit are you smoking?

You have full access to a restroom at Walmart, and it has nothing to do with whether it is the same facility used by someone else. You are "segregated" from women because you are a man, but the law doesn't allow Walmart to discriminate against you and deny you "full access" to a restroom. We are dealing with two completely different things, and I think you are somewhat confused.

After Brown v. Board of Ed, you can make the argument that separate is not equal, but that was not the interpretation of the law prior to that. You are trying to apply a legal interpretation from 1954 to something passed in 1875, does that not strike you as the least bit illogical?

 

[Jarod]

Well idiot, yes it does mean that! You can't outlaw something that doesn't yet exist! What kind of shit are you smoking?

You have full access to a restroom at Walmart, and it has nothing to do with whether it is the same facility used by someone else. You are "segregated" from women because you are a man, but the law doesn't allow Walmart to discriminate against you and deny you "full access" to a restroom. We are dealing with two completely different things, and I think you are somewhat confused.

After Brown v. Board of Ed, you can make the argument that separate is not equal, but that was not the interpretation of the law prior to that. You are trying to apply a legal interpretation from 1954 to something passed in 1875, does that not strike you as the least bit illogical?

Just because a concept does not have a name does not mean it does not exist.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just because a concept does not have a name does not mean it does not exist.

The concept didn't exist AND didn't have a name, AND wasn't addressed in the CRA of 1875! Prior to 1875, there was no "segregation" or "desegregation!" Black people were either allowed or not allowed, that was it... they didn't have a separate place that was considered 'equal' by the whites, it wasn't "segregation" at all, it was mostly "non-inclusiveness" instead.

It was passage of the CRA in 1875, which actually (ironically) prompted segregation. And segregation was deemed as acceptable by the SCOTUS, based on the fact (they said) it didn't violate the provisions of the CRA 1875 or the 14th Amendment. This was the law of the land until Brown v. Board of Ed.

What you keep trying to do, is 'retroactively' apply a modern interpretation to something from over a century ago, and it is silly beyond belief. Surely you must realize there was segregation happening from 1875 to 1964? Are you saying that all of these entities were flagrantly violating the law and no one ever challenged them? For nearly a century, no one thought to bring a lawsuit and take it to the SCOTUS? I mean, you say it is "clearly" a law prohibiting segregation, but the history shows, if that was the case, the courts and the rest of society were completely unaware it "clearly" said that.

 

[Jarod]

You warp everything to your world view.

Do you do it intentionally are you in such denial that you do t even know how demented u are?

 

[Jarod]

Study some history they took it directly to the s.ct and it was ruled unconstitutional! That is why still today it is legal to segergate in purly private Institutions.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Again.... you have not posted where it says anything about segregation or desegregation! "Full and equal" does not indicate it can't be separate from the white folk! Now, yes... in 1964, when they eventually passed the CRA 1964, this WAS clarified, but we can't go forward in time and apply a courts finding in 1964 to the law as interpreted in 1875, it just defies logic. If that's the case, I could argue that we've already outlawed abortion because in 2050, the SCOTUS will rule that unborn babies have Constitutional rights!

No one is being obtuse, this is a matter of fact. In 1875, segregation was NOT outlawed! That was your claim, and you are WRONG!

Dixie, quit being an idiot. For one thing, Northern lawmakers were naive enough not to realize how completely evil their Southern neighbors were (somehow they learned little from the Civil War and the previous 10 years of Reconstruction). Secondly, for things to be full and equal, they can't be segregated anyway...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Chicklet, Schoolyard tactic...feminize a male opponent, and that demeans his argument...someone needs to help this David Duke wanna be grow up. I am sorry but I still am not seeing where the CRA of 1875 says anything about "segregation" or "desegregation." I thought I asked you to point that out to me? Can you not hear me boy? that's because you're either willfully ignorant and/or fucking stupid.....As I pointed out earlier, seems unless the words "ME NO LIKE SEGREGATION, SEGREGATION BAD" is printed out in bold, you seem unable or unwilling to fathom the intent or logical conclusions of the law. If there was no problem, then why enact TWO Civil Rights act to reaffirm the rights of all citizens....especially when one specifys that all will have the same rights as "white people"? You do understand what "civil rights" are in American history bunky? Simple deduction, unless you're a racist revisionist hell bent on David Duke propaganda.

I know a pretty good bit about criminal code laws, and the Constitution. You and Jarhead apparently don't. The 'criminals with guns' example was given to illustrate how Jarhead was incorrect in applying a universal standard to "any persons" and that the term actually DOES have some caveats and conditions. He admitted it after further consideration, but apparently you are too stupid to admit it. I certainly am aware of why criminals can't have guns, that is precisely why I gave that example.

Again for the cheap seats....NOTHING Jarod wrote or posted alludes to the idiocy you are professing. It is YOU that insert this absurd allegation and assertion. What Jaro later agreed with you on has NOTHING to do with the assinine notion of criminals having the "right" to firearms...as they are "criminals" who have LOST certain rights by violating laws. If you'd have any knowledge of criminal code laws, you'd know that. But please, DO provide the law that states that prosecuted criminals have the right to bear arms under any state or federal statute. And spare me YOUR moronic supposition and conjecture. I'll wait.

Now.... back to CRA of 1875.... can you post the part which indicates it outlaws segregation or mandates desegregation? I am still waiting for this, and I don't have all day son. Let's get with it!

See above responses. I keep trying to school dumb toots like you that your insipid stubborness and repetition does not magically turn your blatherings into truth.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Segregation now, segregation forever!

 

[NOVA]

that's because you're either willfully ignorant and/or fucking stupid.....As I pointed out earlier, seems unless the words "ME NO LIKE SEGREGATION, SEGREGATION BAD" is printed out in bold, you seem unable or unwilling to fathom the intent or logical conclusions of the law. If there was no problem, then why enact TWO Civil Rights act to reaffirm the rights of all citizens? You do understand what "civil rights" are in American history bunky? Simple deduction, unless you're a racist revisionist hell bent on David Duke propaganda.

( Or just an ignorant loudmouth like TC)

Two Civil Right Acts ?
For the willfully ignorant....

Civil Rights Act of 1866
Civil Rights Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960
Civil Rights Act of 1968
:lol:

 

[Taichiliberal]

that's because you're either willfully ignorant and/or fucking stupid.....As I pointed out earlier, seems unless the words "ME NO LIKE SEGREGATION, SEGREGATION BAD" is printed out in bold, you seem unable or unwilling to fathom the intent or logical conclusions of the law. If there was no problem, then why enact TWO Civil Rights act to reaffirm the rights of all citizens? You do understand what "civil rights" are in American history bunky? Simple deduction, unless you're a racist revisionist hell bent on David Duke propaganda.

( Or just an ignorant loudmouth like TC)

Two Civil Right Acts ?
For the willfully ignorant....

Civil Rights Act of 1866
Civil Rights Act of 1871
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960
Civil Rights Act of 1968
:lol:

We were originally discussing JUST TWO acts, you blithering idiot! 1866 and 1875. Go back and follow the thread as to the exchanges between Jarod, Dixie and myself....and next time READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, so you'll know what the hell is going on before your fingers hit the keys!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Chicklet, Schoolyard tactic...feminize a male opponent, and that demeans his argument...someone needs to help this David Duke wanna be grow up.

Not a "schoolyard tactic" at all... I have pet names for all you pinheads, it makes my job more interesting. I call you "Chicklet" because you are a pussy boy. A liberal gay butt sex loving pussy boy, trying to sound tough by using "tai chi" in your name. I bet you don't even know tai chi, and if you do, they probably use you for the practice dummy. That would certainly explain your inability to think on your feet... or think period.

ME: I am sorry but I still am not seeing where the CRA of 1875 says anything about "segregation" or "desegregation." I thought I asked you to point that out to me? Can you not hear me boy?

that's because you're either willfully ignorant and/or fucking stupid.....As I pointed out earlier, seems unless the words "ME NO LIKE SEGREGATION, SEGREGATION BAD" is printed out in bold, you seem unable or unwilling to fathom the intent or logical conclusions of the law. If there was no problem, then why enact TWO Civil Rights act to reaffirm the rights of all citizens....especially when one specifys that all will have the same rights as "white people"? You do understand what "civil rights" are in American history bunky? Simple deduction, unless you're a racist revisionist hell bent on David Duke propaganda.

And I notice you still can't point out to me where the bill in question says one damn thing about segregation or desegregation, so we can assume you have FAILED to provide contradiction to my point, and my point stands as valid and legitimate, meaning you have hereby been PWNED by me in this debate. You can THINK it says something it doesn't say... you can keep claiming that is what it intends to say... but you are just plain wrong, because history doesn't show that any of our society thought that is what it said, only you and Jarhead.

ME: I know a pretty good bit about criminal code laws, and the Constitution. You and Jarhead apparently don't. The 'criminals with guns' example was given to illustrate how Jarhead was incorrect in applying a universal standard to "any persons" and that the term actually DOES have some caveats and conditions. He admitted it after further consideration, but apparently you are too stupid to admit it. I certainly am aware of why criminals can't have guns, that is precisely why I gave that example.

Again for the cheap seats....NOTHING Jarod wrote or posted alludes to the idiocy you are professing. It is YOU that insert this absurd allegation and assertion. What Jaro later agreed with you on has NOTHING to do with the assinine notion of criminals having the "right" to firearms...as they are "criminals" who have LOST certain rights by violating laws. If you'd have any knowledge of criminal code laws, you'd know that. But please, DO provide the law that states that prosecuted criminals have the right to bear arms under any state or federal statute. And spare me YOUR moronic supposition and conjecture. I'll wait.

I never stated that, you are misinterpreting what I posted. Jarhead made a statement about the phrase "any person" applying to literally "any person" regardless of circumstance or conditions, and I challenged that. The example I gave to refute his viewpoint, was criminals (any persons) who aren't allowed to exercise their right to bear arms. I understand you would love for me to be claiming that criminals have the right to bear arms, but that is not what I said, and I can't let you just LIE about that, sorry.

We were originally discussing JUST TWO acts, you blithering idiot! 1866 and 1875. Go back and follow the thread as to the exchanges between Jarod, Dixie and myself....and next time READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, so you'll know what the hell is going on before your fingers hit the keys!

No, pussy boy, we are actually discussing "segregation" ...read the thread title again if you didn't catch that! Then you need to read the thread again carefully, and comprehensively, and YOU will find that you and Jarhead haven't provided evidence to support your view and I have. So you two can continue to stroke each other to orgasm if you like, to each his own, but you've not "won" a victory here for the pinheads, you've really shown what simple-minded twits you can be about something as important as Civil Rights.