Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 ...that they own this state. There is a referendum this year on getting rid of the laws still on the books requiring separate education facilities for blacks and whites. Segregationist laws are still on the books in many southern states and Alabama is no exception. Oddly enough, the referendum may not pass. Four years ago a similar referendum dumping the prohibition on interracial marriages passed but a whopping 40% voted to keep the law on the books. The Judge who fought so hard to ram the 10 commandments down everyone's throat is opposing this referendum. Bush now leads Kerry in 'Bama, 59-22 with 19% undecided. Of course, if you took away that racist 40% from Bush, it would be a toss up state. I'm thinking that bodes well for democrats in the south in the future. As race fades as an issue as it inevitably will, even in Alabama, democrats will be increasingly viable south of the Mason-Dixon. For now though, Bush is welcome to that 40%. Alabama to vote on Segregation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I have to ask... WHAT THE !@#$ ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??!!?? First of all, Id like to point out the silly notion of yours that this "fight" somehow relates to the Presidential election. Nice try to make a connection there. No dice, though. Now...the effort to remove the langauge itself....Where did you come up with the idea that the fight to remove this langague is based in ANYTHING besides an effort to remove a piece of pork that was snuck in? From what Ive read, NOBODY is arguing that the language in regards to Jim Crow needs to go. All ANYONE is saying is that a bill to remove such langauge should not have anything else attached to it. Nice try, Mick. Go back to the drawing board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 I have to ask... WHAT THE !@#$ ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??!!?? First of all, Id like to point out the silly notion of yours that this "fight" somehow relates to the Presidential election. Nice try to make a connection there. No dice, though. Now...the effort to remove the langauge itself....Where did you come up with the idea that the fight to remove this langague is based in ANYTHING besides an effort to remove a piece of pork that was snuck in? From what Ive read, NOBODY is arguing that the language in regards to Jim Crow needs to go. All ANYONE is saying is that a bill to remove such langauge should not have anything else attached to it. Nice try, Mick. Go back to the drawing board. 68285[/snapback] There is nothing attached to it. Opponents of the referendum are trying to convince people otherwise to give them a palatable reason to defeat the referendum. Here is a brief on the referendum: 03-203 Provides a constitutional amendment which, if approved by voters, would removes references to segregation of public schools from Alabama's constitution of 1901. Specifically, it would repeal portions of Section 256 and Amendment 111 relating to the separation of schools by race and portions of Amendment 111 concerning the constitutional construction against the right to education and Section 259, Amendment 90, and Amendment 109, relating to the poll tax. [H.587] You can read the text of the act including the provisions being changed at: Alabama Referendum The first change gets rid of the language that says: "Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race." The next change simply elimenates language that permitted the state to shut down a school to preserve order. The only time it had been used was as an excuse to shutdown "black" schools to preserve public order. This law had stated that the state was not required to provide for public education which allowed the state to simply ignore black students which it often did. Technically, it could also opt not to educate white students which, of course, it has never done. The change requires public education which Alabama already does anyway, it just elimenates that exception which was historically used against black school children only. The last change with regard to schools was to repeal a law that allowed parents to pull their kids from a desegregated school to put them in a school "provided for their own race". The other changes are not school related and simply remove the poll tax laws still on the books. Having examined the text of the act, I see nothing but changes removing the last traces of Jim Crow from the Alabama Code. Where is the pork you speak of so authoritatively? The governor of Alabama is a republican and he supports this referendum, is he a champion of pork which is apparently your take or, is it possible that there are some republican extremists out there who do not want to see the last vestiges of segregation removed as I surmise? Afterall, there were 40% of Alabama voters just 4 years ago who were against removing the prohibitions against interracial marriage. Was there also pork attached to that act? I suppose it is just a coincidence that Bush has such a strong lead in a state where 40% of the people voted to make interracial marriage illegal and where a governor actually has to fight to get rid of overturned laws supporting segregated schools. Who do you think those 40% of extremists are going to vote for? When the Republicans talk about a "big tent", I guess they mean it is large enough to accomodate die hard racists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 There is nothing attached to it. Opponents of the referendum are trying to convince people otherwise to give them a palatable reason to defeat the referendum. Here is a brief on the referendum: 03-203 Provides a constitutional amendment which, if approved by voters, would removes references to segregation of public schools from Alabama's constitution of 1901. Specifically, it would repeal portions of Section 256 and Amendment 111 relating to the separation of schools by race and portions of Amendment 111 concerning the constitutional construction against the right to education and Section 259, Amendment 90, and Amendment 109, relating to the poll tax. [H.587] You can read the text of the act including the provisions being changed at: Alabama Referendum The first change gets rid of the language that says: "Separate schools shall be provided for white and colored children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race." The next change simply elimenates language that permitted the state to shut down a school to preserve order. The only time it had been used was as an excuse to shutdown "black" schools to preserve public order. The last change with regard to schools was to repeal a law that allowed parents to pull their kids from a desegregated school to put them in a school "provided for their own race". The other changes are not school related and simply remove the poll tax laws still on the books. Having examined the text of the act, I see nothing but changes removing the last traces of Jim Crow from the Alabama Code. Where is the pork you speak of so authoritatively? The governor of Alabama is a republican and he supports this referendum, is he a champion of pork which is apparently your take or, is it possible that there are some republican extremists out there who do not want to see the last vestiges of segregation removed as I surmise? Afterall, there were 40% of Alabama voters just 4 years ago who were against removing the prohibitions against interracial marriage. Was there also pork attached to that act? I suppose it is just a coincidence that Bush has such a strong lead in a state where 40% of the people voted to make interracial marriage illegal and where a governor actually has to fight to get rid of overturned laws supporting segregated schools. Who do you think those 40% of extremists are going to vote for? When the Republicans talk about a "big tent", I guess they mean it is large enough to accomodate die hard racists. 68387[/snapback] That stereotype just never gets old. Kind of like the one that says all Democrats are single minority mothers who are on the dole with 12 kids having the same first name who're discernible from their different last names. Let's keep wondering why our country is divided when "smart" and "educated" people like you reduce everything so simply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I suppose there's no chance that there are any African-American diehard Democrat racists out there either. That's OK, it's different when we talk about bigotry out of anyone that's not a WASP. then it's "rights". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 I suppose there's no chance that there are any African-American diehard Democrat racists out there either. That's OK, it's different when we talk about bigotry out of anyone that's not a WASP. then it's "rights". 68403[/snapback] You mean all racists aren't southern white males? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 That stereotype just never gets old. Kind of like the one that says all Democrats are single minority mothers who are on the dole with 12 kids having the same first name and discernible from their different last names. Let's keep wondering why our country is divided when "smart" and "educated" people like you reduce everything so simply. 68397[/snapback] Why don't you explain to me why 40% of Alabama voters wanted to keep a prohibition against interracial marriages on the books? Explain to me why it is that a republican governor has to fight to get a defunct law requiring segregated schools off the books in Alabama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Why don't you explain to me why 40% of Alabama voters wanted to keep a prohibition against interracial marriages on the books? Explain to me why it is that a republican governor has to fight to get a defunct law requiring segregated schools off the books in Alabama? 68457[/snapback] 'Cause that's how things are in Alabama? In practical terms-are these laws being enforced? I spent a lot of time living in the south. They are making kind of a statement. For 30 years everything has been about how mean whitey is, and all sorts of new laws and programs are floating around, some of them ridiculous-to lean over backwards for minorities. Some folks see this as a usurping of their rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 'Cause that's how things are in Alabama? In practical terms-are these laws being enforced? I spent a lot of time living in the south. They are making kind of a statement. For 30 years everything has been about how mean whitey is, and all sorts of new laws and programs are floating around, some of them ridiculous-to lean over backwards for minorities. Some folks see this as a usurping of their rights. 68470[/snapback] Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the perception that "All men are created equal" has been usurped by government at all levels with ridiculous programs like Affirmative (in)Action and entities like the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 ...that they own this state. There is a referendum this year on getting rid of the laws still on the books requiring separate education facilities for blacks and whites. Segregationist laws are still on the books in many southern states and Alabama is no exception. Oddly enough, the referendum may not pass. Four years ago a similar referendum dumping the prohibition on interracial marriages passed but a whopping 40% voted to keep the law on the books. The Judge who fought so hard to ram the 10 commandments down everyone's throat is opposing this referendum. Bush now leads Kerry in 'Bama, 59-22 with 19% undecided. Of course, if you took away that racist 40% from Bush, it would be a toss up state. I'm thinking that bodes well for democrats in the south in the future. As race fades as an issue as it inevitably will, even in Alabama, democrats will be increasingly viable south of the Mason-Dixon. For now though, Bush is welcome to that 40%. Alabama to vote on Segregation 68273[/snapback] Is there really nothing better to spend time, effort and money on in Alabama than "removing" meaningless language from old, out of date laws? It's sad that some will stoop so low in an attempt to create political tension for no reason at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 I suppose there's no chance that there are any African-American diehard Democrat racists out there either. That's OK, it's different when we talk about bigotry out of anyone that's not a WASP. then it's "rights". 68403[/snapback] I'm sure there are bib but I can only put up one post at a time and I couldn't find any predominantly black states with a history of segregating whites that were voting on a referendum to remove laws that are a relic of a racist past. When I do, I will be sure to post on it. There may be lots of black racists but they aren't very good at it. As far as I know, white racists were able to keep black slavery legal from 1776 until sometime after the civil war while black racists haven't managed to have white slavery legal for even a day. I think the lynching numbers still favor white racists over black racists by an impossibly large margin. Black racists haven't managed to pass any Jim Crow like legislation disenfranchising whites while white racists were able to accomplish that in more states than I will bother listing here. I confess that I am more concerned about white racists since there just seem to be so much more of them and the fact is, they are much better at it than black ones are. Black racists say things like "White people can't dance" while white racists say things like "blacks are not human". I find one attitude far more dangerous though technically, both are racist. My point isn't that republicans are racists but that they harbor too many. The governor of Alabama, a republican himself, would likely agree as he supports the referendum. How many republicans in this thread have responded with support for the referendum? All have found some reason to avoid the issue. Look at the responses which range from "democrats have racists too" and "those racist, discrimatory and illegal laws were not harming anyone". That is where the republicans on this board find themselves, so partisan that they can't just say, "yeah, those hateful, antiquated laws ought to be scratched". Would that be so very terrible? Why does this have to be an argument? If you were in Alabama would you vote to keep those laws on the books? If so, why? If you would vote to have them taken out, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 If you were in Alabama would you vote to keep those laws on the books? If so, why? If you would vote to have them taken out, why? 68694[/snapback] No. Of course, I can think of no good reason why I'd be voting for anything to do with Alabama. I'd vote to have them taken out because they are unConstitutional. Of course, I'm not a Republican or a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 'Cause that's how things are in Alabama? In practical terms-are these laws being enforced? I spent a lot of time living in the south. They are making kind of a statement. For 30 years everything has been about how mean whitey is, and all sorts of new laws and programs are floating around, some of them ridiculous-to lean over backwards for minorities. Some folks see this as a usurping of their rights. 68470[/snapback] ...and so the proper response to concerns about affirmative action is to vote to keep racist laws on the books? Wasn't "whitey" pretty mean from say 1776 until around, oh, lets say 1964? What is that, 188 years of slavery followed by Jim Crow? I can see why they would be so put out by dealing with some affirmative action programs ove the last 30 years. Not every person who is against affirmative action is a racist. Anyone who is for keeping laws on the books that require segregation and prohibit interracial marriage, with few exceptions, is a racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 Is there really nothing better to spend time, effort and money on in Alabama than "removing" meaningless language from old, out of date laws? It's sad that some will stoop so low in an attempt to create political tension for no reason at all. 68504[/snapback] Laws are changed all the time. It is what legislatures do. Legislators don't get paid by the hour. Picture a black kid in a civics class coming across a law in a book entitled "The Laws of the State of Alabama" or whatever they call their code, that says under the law he is not allowed to go to school with whites. Do you think he will be comforted to know that the law is not enforced? Defunct laws are routinely removed, otherwise, over the years you have a code that has tons and tons of laws and nobody can recall which are good and which aren't. It is simple housekeeping and normally doesn't cause much fuss. The fact that dumping this defunct set of laws in Alabama is a big deal is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 No. Of course, I can think of no good reason why I'd be voting for anything to do with Alabama. I'd vote to have them taken out because they are unConstitutional. Of course, I'm not a Republican or a racist. 68706[/snapback] That's why I said "if" you were in Alabama. That is a long way from Alaska. Unconstitutional? Riiight. They are blatantly unconstitutional and yet, taking them off the books is not a done deal. Either the people who want to keep them on the books are able to muster some argument supporting the constitutionality of those laws that I can't even imagine or they have some other reason for wanting to keep them around. Why would that be? I'm thinking racism is a good explanation. I am hoping that the people of Alabama vote for that referendum in huge numbers and that the 40% that went the other way on interracial marriage do better this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Laws are changed all the time. It is what legislatures do. Legislators don't get paid by the hour. Picture a black kid in a civics class coming across a law in a book entitled "The Laws of the State of Alabama" or whatever they call their code, that says under the law he is not allowed to go to school with whites. Do you think he will be comforted to know that the law is not enforced? Defunct laws are routinely removed, otherwise, over the years you have a code that has tons and tons of laws and nobody can recall which are good and which aren't. It is simple housekeeping and normally doesn't cause much fuss. The fact that dumping this defunct set of laws in Alabama is a big deal is ridiculous. 68721[/snapback] How the legislature is paid doesn't change the fact that this is a waste of money. If the legislature wants to vote and change a law, great, but let's not pretend this is anthing other than a political football timed for the election season. And there's also the matter of the $1.7B spending plan that is apparently wrapped up in this. Why don't the sponsors of this vote draft something that clearly carves out that piece of it just so it's clear to everyone that their motive are as altruistic as you suggest? Somehow, I doubt they'd find this to be as important an issue if that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 ...that they own this state. There is a referendum this year on getting rid of the laws still on the books requiring separate education facilities for blacks and whites. Segregationist laws are still on the books in many southern states and Alabama is no exception. Oddly enough, the referendum may not pass. Four years ago a similar referendum dumping the prohibition on interracial marriages passed but a whopping 40% voted to keep the law on the books. The Judge who fought so hard to ram the 10 commandments down everyone's throat is opposing this referendum. Bush now leads Kerry in 'Bama, 59-22 with 19% undecided. Of course, if you took away that racist 40% from Bush, it would be a toss up state. I'm thinking that bodes well for democrats in the south in the future. As race fades as an issue as it inevitably will, even in Alabama, democrats will be increasingly viable south of the Mason-Dixon. For now though, Bush is welcome to that 40%. Alabama to vote on Segregation 68273[/snapback] YAWN. It is only ok to be racist if you hate white heterosexual christian males. Yes the hate is only one sided. YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 How the legislature is paid doesn't change the fact that this is a waste of money. If the legislature wants to vote and change a law, great, but let's not pretend this is anthing other than a political football timed for the election season. And there's also the matter of the $1.7B spending plan that is apparently wrapped up in this. Why don't the sponsors of this vote draft something that clearly carves out that piece of it just so it's clear to everyone that their motive are as altruistic as you suggest? Somehow, I doubt they'd find this to be as important an issue if that happened. 68748[/snapback] So let me get this straight, the REPUBLICAN governor of the state who strongly supports this referendum is using this as a political football??? Hmmmmm, that kind of doesn't make sense. This is really a family fight within the republican party in Alabama. You have the sane, rational republicans led by the governor on one side and some near raving lunatic republicans on the other. You say there is a ton of cash "apparently" wrapped up in this. Not so, read the links to the actual legislation. It does just what you advocate. It simply and literally crosses out the offensive language. Again, this is not simply my view, it is the view of the very conservative republican governor of Alabama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 YAWN. It is only ok to be racist if you hate white heterosexual christian males. Yes the hate is only one sided. YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN 68773[/snapback] Who said hate is one sided? Would you vote to keep those laws on the books or to take them off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 So let me get this straight, the REPUBLICAN governor of the state who strongly supports this referendum is using this as a political football??? Hmmmmm, that kind of doesn't make sense. This is really a family fight within the republican party in Alabama. You have the sane, rational republicans led by the governor on one side and some near raving lunatic republicans on the other. You say there is a ton of cash "apparently" wrapped up in this. Not so, read the links to the actual legislation. It does just what you advocate. It simply and literally crosses out the offensive language. Again, this is not simply my view, it is the view of the very conservative republican governor of Alabama. 68787[/snapback] Isn't this the same governor who tried to make an appeal to the electorate for a tax break for low income families and a small tax increase to fund schools and programs aimed at children in poverty, based on the tenets of the Bible ("the least of these...") or, for non-Christians, the simple principle that it's the right thing to do for children ... which was soundly defeated (by something like 75% of the voters) last fall? I gave the guy credit for having the courage to stand for the principles that his party mouths but doesn't implement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts