Should the US Supreme Court end race-based affirmative action in university admissions?

I understood perfectly. You think that the right thinks that a baker shouldn't sell or bake a cake to someone who's gay. That told me all I needed to know about your lack of understanding that issue.

 

No, you misrepresent me. I said the right believes the baker should not be required to bake a cake for a gay wedding if the baker feels it is against their “principles”.

 

that's not the real issue-it's that the baker should not be forced to advocate homosexuality. that's not merely baking a case-its decorating a cake that advocates homosexuality. that's the issue

 

Lowering standards for blacks and forcing bakers to serve homosexuals, when they think homosexuality is a bizarre and loathsome perversion, are two separate subjects that need to be discussed separately.

 

Wow you still don't get it. Stop embarrassing yourself.

On second thought, don't. Keep going. I wonder how far you'll go.

 

Discrimination is discrimination. It’s really a question of RW sensitivities and biases because neither is any of your business nor mine.

The Republican Party is a failing renegade party that is focused on division and conflict as its strategy to win because it has no policy issue to offer. So they do what they can to destroy all civil rights. That is the "loathsome perversion.”

 

YOUR misquoting of me is MY problem? LOL!!!!!

 

That's it... keep going...

 

In the 1964 presidential election Barry Goldwater lost to President Johnson in a massive landslide. Johnson won 61% of the vote. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress.

The Republican Party recovered in the election of 1968 because the civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty led to five years of black ghetto rioting, and more enduring increases in black social pathology. From then on the GOP has won elections as the anti black party.

 

What specific civil rights legislation led to black ghetto rioting, and please document it because I don’t believe it.

 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the declaration of the War on Poverty was followed by a black ghetto riot in Harlem.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was followed by the much more destructive riot in Watts.

The Open Housing Act of 1968 was followed by riots throughout the United States.

The riots did not not start until 1964. There were no riots of any size in the South.

The black ghetto riots ended abruptly when Richard Nixon was president. That was because blacks knew their lawless behavior would no longer be tolerated.

Negroes do not riot when they feel hopeless. They riot when they feel powerful.

 

Can we be just a bit more . . . . .uh . . . . . “veracious”? The 1964 Harlem riots were the reaction to an off-duty cop shooting and killing 15-year-old James Powell.

The Watts riots had nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act.
"Inciting incident [wikipedia]
On the evening of Wednesday, August 11, 1965, 21-year-old Marquette Frye, an African-American man driving his mother's 1955 Buick while drunk, was pulled over by California Highway Patrol rookie motorcycle officer Lee Minikus for alleged reckless driving.[4] After Frye failed a field sobriety test, Minikus placed him under arrest and radioed for his vehicle to be impounded.[19] Marquette's brother, Ronald, a passenger in the vehicle, walked to their house nearby, bringing their mother, Rena Price, back with him to the scene of the arrest.

When Rena Price reached the intersection of Avalon Boulevard and 116th Street that evening, she scolded Frye about drinking and driving as he recalled in a 1985 interview with the Orlando Sentinel.[20] However, the situation quickly escalated: someone shoved Price, Frye was struck, Price jumped an officer, and another officer pulled out a shotgun. Backup police officers attempted to arrest Frye by using physical force to subdue him. After community members reported that police had roughed up Frye and shared a rumor they had kicked a pregnant woman, angry mobs formed.[21][22] As the situation intensified, growing crowds of local residents watching the exchange began yelling and throwing objects at the police officers.[23][page needed] Frye's mother and brother fought with the officers and eventually were arrested along with Marquette Frye.[24][page needed][25][page needed][dead link][8]

After the arrests of Price and her sons the Frye brothers, the crowd continued to grow along Avalon Boulevard. Police came to the scene to break up the crowd several times that night, but were attacked when people threw rocks and chunks of concrete.[26] A 46-square-mile (120 km2) swath of Los Angeles was transformed into a combat zone during the ensuing six days.[22]

That’s 0 for 2.

I asked you to be specific, and I asked for documentation. I overlooked it for the first two, but this is vague as can be. First, I think you have the name wrong, and secondly it appears your “shotgun” vagueness on “riots throughout the US” = bupkis.

I was obviously right to doubt you as altogether you gave me two false stories and one nothingburger.

 

Social scientists cannot prove their theories the way chemists and physicists can. We cannot go back in time, choose a different policy, and measure different results. Our only way to estimate causality is to see what followed what.

Before the passing of the civil rights legislation blacks were afraid to riot. They remained afraid in the South, where riots would have been crushed lethally and with enthusiasm. Blacks once again became afraid because Richard Nixon was elected president.

Blacks riot when they think they can get away with it.

 

Correlation does not imply causation, but you say we are free to re-interpret and re-explain it as we choose with our biases and prejudices intact and in force. CUTE!

IOW your complaint is that blacks then felt more free to express themselves, to object, to complain, and to demand, so they let their demands fall on deaf ears and then began screaming them, and that was too much to take. In fact you specifically said “negroes do not riot when they feel hopeless”, which any thinking person would find repulsive. And therefore you say blacks never should have been given any rights because it resulted in riots. When one of their’s is stopped by a cop for driving while black and is shot and killed for asking “why”, their family and black friends should just put up with it and be submissive rather than voicing proper outrage, right?

UN F-ING BELIEVABLE!!!

This reminds me of my own racist mother who once said that the only problem blacks have is that they were “given too much, too soon.”

“It” doesn’t get much clearer than this folks! But “conservatives” and RWers line up to tell us they "aren’t racists, and it’s the left and their A.A. that is racist!"

 

You seem to think it is acceptable for Negroes to go on rampages of looting and burning stores. I do not.

 

DON’T put words in my mouth. This, like so many other things, are your false ideas.

 

Funny. When it was more convenient, the culprit was “Antifa”. Another time it was more “useful” to name BLM. Now it’s time to blame “Negroes”.