This is why they kneel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

First Bolded: Over the years I have posted dozens of such laws and changes and you have been against nearly every one.

Second Bolded: Except for right now and most of the past 60 years…

Nobody is going to look back on this time and say the guys who were defending confederate statues were the ones fighting for black civil rights…

---

There are laws which directly and purposefully discriminate against black people? Im not talking about disproportionate outcomes which can be caused for a variety of reasons. Im talking about direct wording in laws.

That is simply untrue. Again, there is a difference between fighting for equal rights and fighting for equality or equitity. The former is tanglible. The latter is not. Not based on race.

If liberals want to take down statues of david duke, i seriously doubt any conservative is going to take issue with it. But it doesn't stop there. Then it's George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. While I'm not claiming these men to be perfect, their accomplishments to our country outweigh their misgivings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

You are correct based on your usage of verb tense. Republicans WERE not the party of the KKK. But they are currently the ones fighting for their legacy. Democrats want to take down statues dedicated to members of the KKK and want to bring shame to anyone who is wearing or brandishing the Confederate Flag. It's modern day Republicans who are fighting those efforts to take down statues honoring KKK members and proudly showing off their "heritage not hate" flag.

---

Specifically, name kkk members who have statues anyone is asking to have removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Specifically, name kkk members who have statues anyone is asking to have removed.

---

You mean like the monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest in Selma that was put up in like 2000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

There are laws which directly and purposefully discriminate against black people? Im not talking about disproportionate outcomes which can be caused for a variety of reasons. Im talking about direct wording in laws.

That is simply untrue. Again, there is a difference between fighting for equal rights and fighting for equality or equitity. The former is tanglible. The latter is not. Not based on race.

If liberals want to take down statues of david duke, i seriously doubt any conservative is going to take issue with it. But it doesn't stop there. Then it's George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. While I'm not claiming these men to be perfect, their accomplishments to our country outweigh their misgivings.

---

And that’s your problem, the wording isn’t direct because they wanted to enact such laws without them getting repealed. For the life of me I don’t know why you and other conservatives maintain something needs to be explicit for it to be happening. Not saying it directly is literally the first thing racist lawmakers did during Jim Crow.

There are many laws created during Jim Crow that are still around. Not too long ago I posted a Mississippi law that determines what crimes preclude you from voting upon a conviction. This law was created in the late 1800’s by known racists who said during the official round table for the law that their goal was to keep as many black people from voting as possible. They made crimes that block people were known to commit more often the primary ones you could not get your voting rights restored.

This law, made by racists for a clearly stated racist purpose, is still the law in Mississippi. According to you the law itself is not racist because even though they specifically said it was fir a racist reason, it doesn’t explicitly say anything about race in the law.

That’s the level of delusion you and your ilk are at.

Reverse roles with this black man calling the white dude a "cracker" and see if it elicits the same response btw. That white dude got off light too. If that black guy decides to use his fists instead of open hand slapping that white man, he's in the hospital right now. I'd love to hear how everyone should be allowed to use the word again or for that matter that the stigma of the word can just be washed away when other races use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

Reverse roles with this black man calling the white dude a "cracker" and see if it elicits the same response btw. That white dude got off light too. If that black guy decides to use his fists instead of open hand slapping that white man, he's in the hospital right now. I'd love to hear how everyone should be allowed to use the word again though.

---

Is that Joey?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack the Ripper

I don't get it. How you gonna bow up and call him a ****** and then get slapped around like a ***** like that? You had to know it was coming.

---

That’s a good point lol, what did that dude expect was gonna happen at that point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

And that’s your problem, the wording isn’t direct because they wanted to enact such laws without them getting repealed. For the life of me I don’t know why you and other conservatives maintain something needs to be explicit for it to be happening. Not saying it directly is literally the first thing racist lawmakers did during Jim Crow.

There are many laws created during Jim Crow that are still around. Not too long ago I posted a Mississippi law that determines what crimes preclude you from voting upon a conviction. This law was created in the late 1800’s by known racists who said during the official round table for the law that their goal was to keep as many black people from voting as possible. They made crimes that block people were known to commit more often the primary ones you could not get your voting rights restored.

This law, made by racists for a clearly stated racist purpose, is still the law in Mississippi. According to you the law itself is not racist because even though they specifically said it was fir a racist reason, it doesn’t explicitly say anything about race in the law.

That’s the level of delusion you and your ilk are at.

---

First of all, just because a law was created during jim crow and by racists, does not make the law racist in and of itself. Obviously, that doesn’t bode well for the law but that's circumstantial. If it can be proven that the intention of the law was to discriminate against black people, then it should be removed. Also, how does a racist law in Mississippi affect black people in California?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Is that Joey?

---

When did i say calling someone a ****** was acceptable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metswon69

Reverse roles with this black man calling the white dude a "cracker" and see if it elicits the same response btw. That white dude got off light too. If that black guy decides to use his fists instead of open hand slapping that white man, he's in the hospital right now. I'd love to hear how everyone should be allowed to use the word again or for that matter that the stigma of the word can just be washed away when other races use it.

---

This was on Twitter? Is twitter racist? I mean the guy calls the black man a ****** and it's on Twitter so therefore twitter must be racist, right? Obviously, I'm saying this in jest but if this story were on the news being reported by Tom Brokaw, i don't see anything wrong with him saying "this racist piece of **** called this black man a ****** and got what he deserved for it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natepro

You mean like the monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest in Selma that was put up in like 2000?

---

That was taken down recently. From what i just read, it was also on private property, making removal difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

First of all, just because a law was created during jim crow and by racists, does not make the law racist in and of itself. Obviously, that doesn’t bode well for the law but that's circumstantial. If it can be proven that the intention of the law was to discriminate against black people, then it should be removed. Also, how does a racist law in Mississippi affect black people in California?

---

First off, how naive do you have to be to think a law created during Jim Crow by racists would contain some manner of racism?

Second, as I said, we KNOW this law was intended to discriminate because that’s what the makers of the law said the law was designed to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

When did i say calling someone a ****** was acceptable?

---

Did he? Or did he say “there’s a difference between a black person and an n-word?”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Did he? Or did he say “there’s a difference between a black person and an n-word?”

---

The conversation didn't seem to be benevolent before that, though.