Started By
Message

re: When will whites start using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to sue the government

Posted on 4/4/21 at 1:39 pm to
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 1:39 pm to
Another problem is that the CRA is just a statute. Any new statutory program can easily be written to exclude itself from coverage under the CRA.

Of course, explicitly doing that would prove the point, would it not?
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
62009 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 1:40 pm to
quote:

I think the intent is that it would allow for Black farmers that never received a settlement from some USDA claims long ago regarding loans or something....would get paid



Again


quote:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
This post was edited on 4/4/21 at 1:43 pm
Posted by Sooner5030
Desert Southwest
Member since Sep 2014
1740 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 1:44 pm to
quote:

Again


that's fine....but a long time ago this matter was adjudicated and it was determine that a certain number of black farmers were harmed by a USDA loan program.

The money set aside to right the wrong was never fully expensed and some people believe many black farmers that were "harmed" never put in the claim.

Not saying it's right....especially since it doesnt really have safeguards to make sure it only goes to those farmers that should have had a previous claim.
Posted by RobertFootball
SC
Member since Mar 2021
2179 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 1:50 pm to
Yeah but it’s implied “except whitey’s!”
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 1:57 pm to
In fairness, it is unlikely that the 1964 Congress even considered the remote possibility that any federal program in the future would explicitly exclude whites.
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
62009 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:03 pm to
quote:

Not saying it's right....especially since it doesnt really have safeguards to make sure it only goes to those farmers that should have had a previous claim.


So the libs can use an endless list of excuses to subvert a very plain ACT?
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
62009 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:04 pm to
quote:

In fairness, it is unlikely that the 1964 Congress even considered the remote possibility that any federal program in the future would explicitly exclude whites.


Which makes the irony of using it so delightful.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:21 pm to
quote:

quote:

In fairness, it is unlikely that the 1964 Congress even considered the remote possibility that any federal program in the future would explicitly exclude whites.
Which makes the irony of using it so delightful.
Indeed.

Strict Construction is not just a method for Constitutional interpretation. I apply it to statutes as well.
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
62009 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:28 pm to
quote:

Strict Construction is not just a method for Constitutional interpretation. I apply it to statutes as well.


Bravo for being consistent
Posted by IslandBuckeye
Boca Chica, Panama
Member since Apr 2018
10067 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:30 pm to
quote:

What about the Vermont vaccine decree?

Bold claim from Bernie bros. Check out the demographics in the snowflake state. They are mad at NH for their Live Free or Die motto. Keeps them greenies from crossing the border.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:34 pm to
quote:

Bravo for being consistent
Folks can disagree with my analysis to their hearts’ content, but only the VERY disingenuous would claim that I am anything other than 100% consistent.
Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:36 pm to
quote:

Folks can disagree with my analysis to their hearts’ content, but only the VERY disingenuous would claim that I am anything other than 100% consistent.



quote:

anything other than 100% consistent


as were Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. and they would brag about consistency too, if anyone ever asked them
Posted by Lima Whiskey
Member since Apr 2013
22594 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:37 pm to
This will come down to might makes right. And the courts will side with the Democrats.

The courts will not protect us.

All we have are each other.
This post was edited on 4/4/21 at 2:40 pm
Posted by CDawson
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2017
19325 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:43 pm to
quote:

White person: “so how come you’re giving POC precedence over white people?”
Dem: “because you’re white and we want revenge.


Revenge? So the party that committed every single atrocity leading to the CRA, voted against the CRA, now wants revenge for their own actions?



If it wasn’t so true it would be insane.
Posted by ChuckO1975
Member since Feb 2021
1292 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:49 pm to
quote:

Revenge? So the party that committed every single atrocity leading to the CRA, voted against the CRA,


"Atrocities"

Like burning down cities and acts of terrorism? That's what the fake "civil rights" side was doing, and those same people are doing it today.

Today, conservatives want and end to the madness, and they wanted an end to it then, too.

quote:

The Watts Riot, which raged for six days and resulted in more than forty million dollars worth of property damage, was both the largest and costliest urban rebellion of the Civil Rights era. The riot spurred from an incident on August 11, 1965 when Marquette Frye, a young African American motorist, was pulled over and arrested by Lee W. Minikus, a white California Highway Patrolman, for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. As a crowd on onlookers gathered at the scene of Frye's arrest, strained tensions between police officers and the crowd erupted in a violent exchange. The outbreak of violence that followed Frye's arrest immediately touched off a large-scale riot centered in the commercial section of Watts, a deeply impoverished African American neighborhood in South Central Los Angeles. For several days, rioters overturned and burned automobiles and looted and damaged grocery stores, liquor stores, department stores, and pawnshops. Over the course of the six-day riot, over 14,000 California National Guard troops were mobilized in South Los Angeles and a curfew zone encompassing over forty-five miles was established in an attempt to restore public order. All told, the rioting claimed the lives of thirty-four people, resulted in more than one thousand reported injuries, and almost four thousand arrests before order was restored on August 17. Throughout the crisis, public officials advanced the argument that the riot was the work outside agitators; however, an official investigation, prompted by Governor Pat Brown, found that the riot was a result of the Watts community's longstanding grievances and growing discontentment with high unemployment rates, substandard housing, and inadequate schools.


Same shite, different decade. It would be nice if Conservatives would pull their fricking heads out of their fat asses and stop accepting every libelous narrative tossed at them by the left.

This post was edited on 4/4/21 at 2:51 pm
Posted by 1BIGTigerFan
100,000 posts
Member since Jan 2007
55222 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 3:12 pm to
quote:

no person can be discriminated based on skin color.
quote:

I’m a person. I have skin.

They'll argue white isn't a color.
Posted by Crimson Wraith
Member since Jan 2014
29359 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 3:16 pm to
There was a big reverse discrimination win in AL back in the 80's or 90's. Believe it was for quotas in fire depts.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
44345 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 3:20 pm to
quote:

quote:

no person can be discriminated based on skin color. I’m a person. I have skin.
They'll argue white isn't a color.
The CRA says nothing about skin color. It speaks to “race.”
Posted by Lugnut
Wesson
Member since Nov 2016
1509 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

I think the intent is that it would allow for Black farmers that never received a settlement from some USDA claims long ago regarding loans or something....would get paid.


You are wrong. It doesn’t matter if you have or have not received a settlement in the past. If you are black and have a loan with FSA or a FSA backed guaranteed loan, you will receive 120% of the remaining balance as of January 1, 2021. Doesn’t matter if it’s $10 or 10 million
Posted by Bulldogblitz
In my house
Member since Dec 2018
28158 posts
Posted on 4/4/21 at 3:21 pm to
The only whites that will try and use it are the self-loathing ones, and it will be about hysterics.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram