- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 Sooner5030
Posted on 4/4/21 at 1:39 pm to Sooner5030
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?
Of course, explicitly doing that would prove the point, would it not?
Posted on 4/4/21 at 1:40 pm to Sooner5030
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 on 4/4/21 at 1:44 pm to Revelator
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 on 4/4/21 at 1:50 pm to Revelator
Yeah but it’s implied “except whitey’s!”
Posted on 4/4/21 at 1:57 pm to RobertFootball
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 on 4/4/21 at 2:03 pm to Sooner5030
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 on 4/4/21 at 2:04 pm to AggieHank86
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 on 4/4/21 at 2:21 pm to Revelator
quote:Indeed.quote:Which makes the irony of using it so delightful.
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.
Strict Construction is not just a method for Constitutional interpretation. I apply it to statutes as well.
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Strict Construction is not just a method for Constitutional interpretation. I apply it to statutes as well.
Bravo for being consistent
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:30 pm to ZZTIGERS
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 on 4/4/21 at 2:34 pm to Revelator
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.
Bravo for being consistent
Posted on 4/4/21 at 2:36 pm to AggieHank86
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 on 4/4/21 at 2:37 pm to Revelator
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.
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 on 4/4/21 at 2:43 pm to MJforPrez
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 on 4/4/21 at 2:49 pm to CDawson
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 on 4/4/21 at 3:12 pm to Revelator
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 on 4/4/21 at 3:16 pm to Revelator
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 on 4/4/21 at 3:20 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:The CRA says nothing about skin color. It speaks to “race.”quote:They'll argue white isn't a color.
no person can be discriminated based on skin color. I’m a person. I have skin.
Posted on 4/4/21 at 3:21 pm to Revelator
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 on 4/4/21 at 3:21 pm to Revelator
The only whites that will try and use it are the self-loathing ones, and it will be about hysterics.
Popular
Back to top



0





