Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He blames government rather than the people running government. This is the equivalent of liberals blaming the gun, and not the person holding it(even though liberals dont actually do that).
Racist in control of government create racist laws. Those racist were the majority at one point, the 60's were the turning point.
You don't get it. And no the racist weren't the majority. Government not the people made the racist Jim Crow. It was forced on we the people. If government respected the rights of the individual we wouldnt have had Jim Crow
Instead of seeing racism everywhere how about you look at the cause. That cause is government violating our rights.
2. he assumes government wanted it more than the people did, but that is just that an assumption. I would argue that Jim Crow existed more to have a legal standing on which to punish blacks rather than to just have segregation.
3.Woolworth only desegregated stores in 4 store in North Carolina and South Carolina. . In the rest of the South, they didnt desegregate until after the civil rights act was passed. Which again, shows the fallacies Shapiro pedals.
And lets be clear, Woolworth didnt lose money because people were against them, they lost money because the people doing the sit ins and the reporters reporting on it werent buying food/werent allowed to buy food.
Thats not consumer backlash, its lack of access. There is a gigantic difference .
His point was that government was the problem rather than the humans behind it, thats the flaw in his argument. If he had actually been arguing what you claim, my comment wouldnt exist in its context.
The free market does not have principles, but people do. racist and homophobes tend to not care about the free market
You don't get it. Again government forced people to bow to their will not the other way around.
Your comment has no context because you completely miss the point. It's been explained to you in simple terms but you still refuse to get it.
Your last statement holds no water. First you say the people were racist, then you say they're not. Which is it? Make up your mind.
It's not about what individuals did since many were against Jim Crow. It's about the use of force to make others bow to governments will. You talk about the free market not having principles? You're the one who has no problem with government taking the peoples money as long as you agree with the cause. Tyrannys okay as long as you support the issue. THAT is unprincipled. The use of force and coercion should never be tolerated.
I would vote for him in a second. It would be amazing to see him in a presidential debate.
You would vote for someone who makes us less safe and who would continue to have the country in debt. Why? How do we the people pay for it? In case you haven't noticed those two are related. It is impossible to have a good economy and continue to pay for costly wars. You have to either raise taxes to a much higher rate which would kill the economy or you continue to go further into debt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
