There's the wall, progress satisfactory, promise kept.
Well at that point, why bother having political systems in place to discourage and prevent dictatorship at all? You ever think that maybe it's the opposing party that holds up a lot of these proceedings? I mean, it took Trump four years to build a half finished wall and you praise him for keeping his word, but expect Biden to create enough new eco friendly jobs in an eight month period, despite confrontation from some of the industries this country was founded upon, such as coal, lumber, steel, and so on? I mean, I lean Democrat most of the time, but if Biden can barely make it up the stairs, I don't have much hope for him keeping up with your schedule.I expect him to be advancing a retraining program and associated job bills as quickly as he is eliminating energy sector jobs which he began doing by executive order the first day in office.
...of which you responded to two.
I mean, I'm pretty sure I got the point pretty quickly. That's why I quoted text rather than write a long winded block post. I'm really bothered you didn't pick up on that; you seem so smart.
No, you definitely got me beat on that. I might not be that funny, but I also don't need picture memes to reinforce what humor I think I have. Nice try though.
Smoking crack is, objectively, a poor life choice.
Crack will wreck you regardless of whether you're white, black, brown or magenta.
What you meant to say was overwhelming support of black politicians 25 years ago. 25 years ago half of our user base wasn't even a twinkle in their papa's eye, but let's pretend that's modern. The sentencing disparity you saw in the 90's was overwhelmingly caused by the 1994 crime bill which, in turn, was constructed in association with black mayors all across the country.
Those are some very nice opinions. The facts, on the other hand, show overwhelming support for the bill - it passed through the Senate with *one* Nay.
And that has to do with discrimination based on race in the law how? The law is equally binding for the wealthy and the poor. I fully understand that you'd prefer to apply law differently depending on the pyramid of victimhood, along the lines of "intersectional" policies, and pretend that this "equitable" approach is fair, but it's not - it de facto creates people who are equal and people who are equal-er in the eyes of the justice system.
TLTR. You sat two records today, typing the most without saying anything and a speed record for my ignore. That normally takes a few weeks of insults.
you know what? why the hell are you even a global mod if your talking like this? I stayed quiet LONG ENOUGH about your behavior sorry but I'm going to talk to @Costello about this it worries me
Ah yes, the ACLU - a private entity that has strayed so far off the beaten path that it no longer represents its original goals. Not according to me, mind - according to former associates. The same ACLU that used to defend the right to free speech for Nazis and the KKK is now more interested in branding people than it is about defending rights - they've lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. I did not deny past injustices at any point in this exchanged - I've asked you, thrice now, if you can point out a law that explicitly discriminates against minorities because they're minorities. You cannot, because no such law exists since Jim Crow. As such, I consider the exchange over and done with.
Oh no, please don't tell on me! What if my... publicly posted... opinion... is visible to... the public? Alright.
sorry that you are taking the piss my friend but I'm not sure what is wrong with Foxi's post?
) fully respect his right to have a different opinion than mine.
The new method of discrimination targets people based on location, and because previous housing discrimination accomplished its goal throughout the decades, it's still very easy to pinpoint minority neighborhoods. Neither the Southern Strategy nor Jim Crow laws ever really went away, they just changed form slightly.
People of colour in America are constantly bombarded with messaging that the consequences of their actions are not their own - somebody else is always at fault. Somebody else made them flunk school, somebody else made them break the law, somebody else, on purpose, made the bus late and they missed an interview, somebody else made them leave a pregnant significant other, or peddled them drugs. There's a boogieboo in the air that inhibits them, it's not them that need to self-improve and stick to the straight and narrow - it's the road that needs to be torn up. Absolutely not - we are all equal, regardless of skin colour. People of colour are on every level of government and public life - they're lawyers, they're police officers, they're doctors, they're mayors, they're in Congress - a PoC woman can be Vice President, a black man can be President, the most powerful man in the world. If you want to correct the sins of the forefathers, do it from within by being a paragon of society, not by blaming the specter of invisible racism that you cannot quantify. The former is a path to success, the latter a path of self-doubt, lack of accountability and defeat. You are robbing people of agency by removing personal responsibility from the equation. You are telling them, repeatedly, that no matter how hard they try, they will never perform as well as their white peers because they're brown. That's patently false.
Uhh...no. Acknowledging that past discrimination was real, codified into law, and that the consequences of it still linger today is not the same thing as passing the buck where personal responsibility is concerned. If you really want people to "just get over it," then some form of restitution is required for the affected families and individuals. Jim Crow and housing discrimination are not ancient history, most of those affected by these things are still alive today.
People who choose to play the victim do so of their own accord, but this is an entirely separate issue. Obviously you don't have to be black or a minority for that, as modern conservative media is filled with lists of all the ways that straight white Christians are supposedly being oppressed and persecuted.
That's the opposite of how housing discrimination worked: black people simply weren't permitted to apply for mortgages in certain neighborhoods, and the deeds to a number of houses stated definitively that they were not to be occupied by non-whites. Do some more research on redlining and the GI bill.
Ah yes, "separate but equal." That's never been known to cause any problems whatsoever. /s
I wasn't part of the initial argument. I only interjected to point out that systemic discrimination is still alive and well, even if the methodology and/or language surrounding it has changed to better exploit modern legal loopholes.
It's one or the other - either it exists in the present and you can point out precise laws that discriminate based on race *or* it has existed in the past and the consequences are felt today, causing some to be in the position of playing catch-up. Decide which point you're arguing, because so far your response is a strawman. Nobody has ever said that no discrimination against black people has taken place over the centuries - the whole conversation is about common law at present. You pointing out past injustices is not a "W", it's changing the subject.
As I already said, discrimination based on where you live is the new discrimination based on race. The most obvious examples of this are gentrification and Republican-drafted election laws that specifically target urban and inner-city areas.
