NationStates Jolt Archive

During the last election, they had the ability to strike down a segration law/talk that was on the state constitution. But, it failed! Lemme say that again, it failed. It looks like the Civil War to end slavery in the South didn't work. People are still rascist down there.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/segregation.amendment.ap/

Conservative states have no morals.

Page not found.

But of course conservative states have no morals. I'd venture to guess that no state has morals. Now, the people in those states... that's another discussion.

[QUOTE=Actual

Conservative states have no morals.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they do. They voted for Bush didn't they?

Voting for bush = having morals :confused:

sorry guys, the link has been fixed.

Striking it down would have meant tax increases.

Voting for bush = having morals :confused:
He ran as the "morals" candidate. Or at least many who voted for him did so because they said he stood for good morals.

During the last election, they had the ability to strike down a segration law/talk that was on the state constitution. But, it failed! Lemme say that again, it failed. It looks like the Civil War to end slavery in the South didn't work. People are still rascist down there.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/segregation.amendment.ap/

Conservative states have no morals.

Ok, first of all, the civil war wasnt to end slavery. Also, racism is still everywhere, its something you cant stop.

This sounds more like it's the government's fault. I'm sure the amendment would've been passed if it weren't for the taxes tied to it. Besides, they said that the part of the amendment isn't even enforced anymore. It's not really that bad.

Ok, first of all, the civil war wasnt to end slavery. Also, racism is still everywhere, its something you cant stop.

Alright, if you want to be technical about it, the cause of the war wasn't to end slavery, but it did eventually become one of the reasons for the war.

And you're right, rascism can't be stopped. But aren't you concerned that such a high number of people in Alabama are racist?

Ok, first of all, the civil war wasnt to end slavery. Also, racism is still everywhere, its something you cant stop.

Sure but it seems to be prevelent in the South.

Don't think I have ever heard "******" used in my evil blue state.

This sounds more like it's the government's fault. I'm sure the amendment would've been passed if it weren't for the taxes tied to it. Besides, they said that the part of the amendment isn't even enforced anymore. It's not really that bad.
Give me a break--it is that bad. Why on earth do you think the tax issue was tied to it? So it would fail. And whether or not it's enforced anymore--and it's not enforced because the federal government currently says that it can't be enforced--is unimportant. It's still on the books, and could conceivably be enforced again, if say, there were a federal judiciary that was more concerned with states' rights than with individual civil liberties.

Sure but it seems to be prevelent in the South.

Don't think I have ever heard "******" used in my evil blue state.

You're right. I used to live in Louisiana, a red state, and the people there were racist. My uncle, for instance, was rascist. And black neighborhoods were automatically labelled as ghetto and dangerous, where it doesn't matter if the neighborhood was perfect or not.

Edit, and I should say that I now live in california, but I still retain the rascist behavior I picked up in Louisiana. I'm trying to change my thoughts on racism, but it's not as easy as you think.

You're right. I used to live in Louisiana, a red state, and the people there were racist. My uncle, for instance, was rascist. And black neighborhoods were automatically labelled as ghetto and dangerous, where it doesn't matter if the neighborhood was perfect or not.

Edit, and I should say that I now live in california, but I still retain the rascist behavior I picked up in Louisiana. I'm trying to change my thoughts on racism, but it's not as easy as you think.
What a coincidence--I grew up in Louisiana and live in the Bay Area now. And I know what you mean about racism being prevalent. In many cases, it's an unconscious kind of racism as well. In my social group as a teenager, there were both white and black--we said that color wasn't an issue, etc. But the second one of the white people said something about dating a black person, a chill came over the group. It was okay to be friends, but not to be partners, it seemed.

I was lucky--my parents were anything but racist, so I learned my behavior from them and I'm glad for it. But it's tough to get away from. Ingrained behavior takes a lot of willpower to defeat, and I'm glad that it seems you're trying to do so.

Well, I live in South Carolina. That right there should say a lot for itself. But let me be the first to tell you, that the blacks are (most of the time) the first ones to get racist and then the white person gets defensive and the white person ends up in trouble. Its rather complicated, and being that I'm in high school, I see it a lot.

During the last election, they had the ability to strike down a segration law/talk that was on the state constitution. But, it failed! Lemme say that again, it failed. It looks like the Civil War to end slavery in the South didn't work. People are still rascist down there.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/segregation.amendment.ap/

Conservative states have no morals.
you wanna know the BEST part of it? the reason why it failed?

because it would remove some racist text that said people dont have the right to a free education and MIGHT allow the state to tax SPECIFICALLY for education

god forbid these rednecks pay to teach their kids to be smarter than mississippi...

I always wondered something...

What is the legal definition (or medical definition) of "white" and "black".

For purposes of either racist segregation, or affirmative action, one might think that the legal and medical distinction would be important.

Ah, I see. There ISN'T a legal or medical definition for those terms...

During the last election, they had the ability to strike down a segration law/talk that was on the state constitution. But, it failed! Lemme say that again, it failed. It looks like the Civil War to end slavery in the South didn't work. People are still rascist down there.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/03/segregation.amendment.ap/

Conservative states have no morals.

Oh yes and im sure the baby killing and pro-gay marriage liberals have A LOT of morality :rolleyes:

Oh yes and im sure the baby killing and pro-gay marriage liberals have A LOT of morality :rolleyes:

Say what you want about abortion, but what's immoral about gay marriage? Is it the love involved, the legalisation of marriage?

Oh yes and im sure the baby killing and pro-gay marriage liberals have A LOT of morality :rolleyes:
If there's anything more moral than allowing two people of the same sex who love and care for each other to enter into a lifetime bond that offers legal protections and rights for them, then I don't know what it is. As for abortion, it isn't baby-killing and it isn't recommended--it's just kept as an option, an option we hope isn't used very often.

Oh yes and im sure the baby killing and pro-gay marriage liberals have A LOT of morality :rolleyes:
as compared to you? alot more relatively

1) The part of the Alabama Constitution the amendment would have changed was no longer followed. The amendment was purely cosmetic.
2) The Governor said that this was "Amendment Two." Sounds like Alabama simply doesn't like having their Constitution tampered with.
3) Right-Wing America, this is about segregation, not abortion or gay rights. We already have enough threads discussing those, thank you.
4) I used to live in Georgia, but I have moved around a bit. Strangely, I found that it was when I lived in California and Arizona that my neightbors were the most racist.

I always wondered something...

What is the legal definition (or medical definition) of "white" and "black".

For purposes of either racist segregation, or affirmative action, one might think that the legal and medical distinction would be important.

Ah, I see. There ISN'T a legal or medical definition for those terms...

THere is *no* biological reason to even categorize people into "races," as the biological differences are not great enough to do so.

Legally, it usually refers to skin color or what lineage you can trace yourself back to.

1) The part of the Alabama Constitution the amendment would have changed was no longer followed. The amendment was purely cosmetic.and?

2) The Governor said that this was "Amendment Two." Sounds like Alabama simply doesn't like having their Constitution tampered with.
the alabama constitution has some 270 amendments, i think more


4) I used to live in Georgia, but I have moved around a bit. Strangely, I found that it was when I lived in California and Arizona that my neightbors were the most racist.
oh alot of the people in the south are racist, they just keep it subtly too their selves for the most part and sugarcoat their voice when talking to the other races

Well, one of the more enlightened racist moments I recall in the military (and the government) was the "necessity" of identfying my racial group.

You had several choices, among which was Asian and Pacific Islander.

I see, if I eat rice and have a light tan, I'm Asian.

My dogged insistence that I didn't fit any of the groups didn't go over very well.

And there's no legal definition for those groups! So why does the government, in the name of making things right, still group us by race?

THere is *no* biological reason to even categorize people into "races," as the biological differences are not great enough to do so.

Legally, it usually refers to skin color or what lineage you can trace yourself back to.
Scientifically, there really is no distinction between a black man, a white man, a mexican man, etc. All are the same species, commonly reffered to as homo sapiens.

Scientifically, there really is no distinction between a black man, a white man, a mexican man, etc. All are the same species, commonly reffered to as homo sapiens.

...which is exactly what I said...

There are distinctions. Forsenic scentists can tell whether someone is Caucasian, African, or Asian, for example. They might not be important distinctions, but they are there.

Sure but it seems to be prevelent in the South.

Don't think I have ever heard "******" used in my evil blue state.
I have … more then a few times

And I am in an evil blue state of Minnesota

You know that Alabama has a huge deficit? Not very surprising considering they pay barley any taxes, which also explains why Alabama's schools are a travesty - but then again, the state doesn't give you the right to a public education, so what do you expect? Their elementary school libraries are a joke. Some of them are the size of a single shelf.

That doesn't change the fact that Alabama gets a lot of Federal dollars though. They get $1.61 for every dollar they pay. (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html)

"It's your money, you keep it"

Ha!

There are distinctions. Forsenic scentists can tell whether someone is Caucasian, African, or Asian, for example. They might not be important distinctions, but they are there.

They can only tell to about 60% - 70% *maybe* if they use very, very complicated expensive checks.

This is not enough of a distinction to use the biological term "race."

You know that Alabama has a huge deficit? Not very surprising considering they pay barley any taxes, which also explains why Alabama's schools are a travesty - but then again, the state doesn't give you the right to a public education, so what do you expect? Their elementary school libraries are a joke. Some of them are the size of a single shelf.

That doesn't change the fact that Alabama gets a lot of Federal dollars though. They get $1.61 for every dollar they pay. (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html)

"It's your money, you keep it"

Ha!
nah, its not the elementary school libraries that are a joke, its the high schools'. i think the newest book in our library was 12 years old, and you couldnt find anything having to do with anything cuz THEY DIDNT HAVE IT. and the librarian was going around putting masking tape over parts of the books she didnt like

Well, there is a bad characterization of the southern states in general... I've seen racism all over the place, California, New York.... some of the most racist states are the new england states (it's just never been "violent" racism).

All I have to say is....

Virginia, housed the Capital of the Confederacy, and was the FIRST US state with a black Govenor :>

Did you know that the man in South Carolina that had the most slaves was Black himself. He was a freed slave and lived in Charleston, and he had more slaves than any other person in South Carolina.

Well, we Virginians are sophisticated. PLEASE DO NOT GROUP US WITH HE LIKES OF GEORGIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND ALABAMA.

We are better than them. We have excellent schools too..

Hell, Bush won Virginia by like 9-11%

Secretary of State Nancy Worley said voters defeated the amendment by just 1,850 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast. The original vote count showed the amendment lost by the same margin, or 0.13 percent.

Worley cautioned that the totals are unofficial until the votes are certified next week. "But this is an indication it is not going to turn around," she said.

The amendment would have erased unenforced language from Alabama's constitution that required segregated schools and poll taxes, which were designed to keep blacks from voting. Supporters of the amendment said the language is a painful and embarrassing reminder of the South's divisive past, and makes Alabama look bad to companies who might want to do business in the state.

But the measure also would have removed language that said there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense in Alabama. Opponents said removing it could have led to huge, court-ordered tax hikes for schools.

Gov. Bob Riley said Friday he will ask the Legislature in its February session to approve a version of the amendment that would remove only the constitutional language on segregated schools and poll taxes. That is what he originally wanted, but the Legislature decided to expand his recommendation before presenting it to voters in the November 2 election.

"Despite the defeat of Amendment Two, I'm confident the vast majority of Alabamians support removing segregationist language from our constitution," the governor said.

Most counties had close to or exactly the same totals they had on November 2, but some saw variations of hundreds of votes.

County election officials attributed the differences to some ballots not being counted by electronic scanners because they were too wrinkled, and voters marking the ballots with their personal pens rather than those provided at polling places. In a few instances, counties misplaced some ballots between the election and the recount, election officials said.


Wait...I'm lost, it was defeated because education is not a public right? But what about public schools? Aren't they kinda paid for government and so a right...

Is money the only reason why it was not changed? Aren't children's education more important than money?

Grays Hill, that is a pure bull shit myth.

Freedslaves have no means to have slaves, let alone much property at all

And to that last post, no, it is not to the people of Alabama.

Grays Hill, that is a pure bull shit myth.

Freedslaves have no means to have slaves, let alone much property at all

And to that last post, no, it is not to the people of Alabama.

http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/heritage/cw7.shtml

Tell me its bull shit now.

But the measure also would have removed language that said there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense in Alabama. Opponents said removing it could have led to huge, court-ordered tax hikes for schools

could this have something to do with the defeating of the proposal?

Wait...I'm lost, it was defeated because education is not a public right? But what about public schools? Aren't they kinda paid for government and so a right...

Is money the only reason why it was not changed? Aren't children's education more important than money?
we are talking about alabama, if they even hear a whisper of the word tax the thing up for vote is defeated

And for those who would like the read more FACTS about the south, go here:
http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/heritage/history.shtml

Oh yes and im sure the baby killing and pro-gay marriage liberals have A LOT of morality :rolleyes:
1. it's not babies.
2. what's wrong with gay marriage. they're just as capable of loving relationships as straight couples. it's called human rights.

They can only tell to about 60% - 70% *maybe* if they use very, very complicated expensive checks.

This is not enough of a distinction to use the biological term "race."
it depends what they're working with.

i know they can tell from a skull for instance, simply because well, generally say a black person will have a wider, flatter nose than a white person.

i dunno, to some extent they can tell regional descent for caucasians apparantly. (i watch too much csi, correct me if i'm wrong)

http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/heritage/cw7.shtml

Tell me its bull shit now.

Got a neutral source?

Grays Hill, that is a pure bull shit myth.

Freedslaves have no means to have slaves, let alone much property at all

And to that last post, no, it is not to the people of Alabama.

Actually, it is true... One of South Carolina's slave magnates was a formerly freed black slave, William Ellison.... He wasn't the largest slave-owner in S.C. but he was in the top 10.... Actually, in the time it was not unsual, almost 28% of the free blacks in the south were slave owners (contrasted with the 1.4% of slave owning whites in the south).... Slavery was a generally accepted practice then... Virginia had the largest population of free blacks prior to the outbreak of the war (and also the first state to employ blacks in their army, despite the Confederate Government's decisions on the issue)... and even used blacks for spies, since the Union Army was too infantile to imagine that black virginians would fight for their state as much as any other Virginian...

Actually, it is true... One of South Carolina's slave magnates was a formerly freed black slave, William Ellison.... He wasn't the largest slave-owner in S.C. but he was in the top 10.... Actually, in the time it was not unsual, almost 28% of the free blacks in the south were slave owners (contrasted with the 1.4% of slave owning whites in the south).... Slavery was a generally accepted practice then... Virginia had the largest population of free blacks prior to the outbreak of the war (and also the first state to employ blacks in their army, despite the Confederate Government's decisions on the issue)... and even used blacks for spies, since the Union Army was too infantile to imagine that black virginians would fight for their state as much as any other Virginian...
Now now, no need to insult the Union.

Now now, no need to insult the Union.

No insult to them, in general... it was because of purposeful misinformation by the leadership... Though, if the Civil War would have taken place in post-genevan history; most of the Union Generals would have been hanged for war-crimes.... Especially Gen. Sherman, who considered raping women and setting fire to children, black and white, as valid forms of warfare... and Lincoln makes Bush look like Mother Theresa.

No insult to them, in general... it was because of purposeful misinformation by the leadership... Though, if the Civil War would have taken place in post-genevan history; most of the Union Generals would have been hanged for war-crimes.... Especially Gen. Sherman, who considered raping women and setting fire to children, black and white, as valid forms of warfare... and Lincoln makes Bush look like Mother Theresa.

Yeah, Sherman's march probably wouldn't be looked upon to kindly if it were committed now.

No insult to them, in general... it was because of purposeful misinformation by the leadership... Though, if the Civil War would have taken place in post-genevan history; most of the Union Generals would have been hanged for war-crimes.... Especially Gen. Sherman, who considered raping women and setting fire to children, black and white, as valid forms of warfare... and Lincoln makes Bush look like Mother Theresa.

Well, that sucks. I never knew that. But at least, through time, the north isn't going around raping women and killing children anymore. Too bad the south is still a shithole and a large percentage of the population are rascist.

Yea, there are rascist people everywhere, but seriously, when more than 50% of the population is against a bill to stop segregation, then that is just sad. And Alabama needs to pay more taxes. They're sucking on my money and thinking it's their right to have it. I still remember hearing how Alabama sued the goverment in order to have more money . . .

Well, that sucks. I never knew that. But at least, through time, the north isn't going around raping women and killing children anymore. Too bad the south is still a shithole and a large percentage of the population are rascist.

Yea, there are rascist people everywhere, but seriously, when more than 50% of the population is against a bill to stop segregation, then that is just sad. And Alabama needs to pay more taxes. They're sucking on my money and thinking it's their right to have it. I still remember hearing how Alabama sued the goverment in order to have more money . . .

Well, to play devils advocate; it seems more like it's a non-issue. Since it is a already defunct segment of their state constitution. Besides, it takes more than mere majority vote to change the constitution, so the level of people against it could be far lower than 50%.

And for those who would like the read more FACTS about the south, go here:
http://www.dixieoutfitters.com/heritage/history.shtml

Facts? How so because it paints a better spin for the South? Because it's stuff you want to hear?

I read some of it and some of it is interested and yet some of it is the same old attemp at revisionist history. As shown by the usual secession arguments and slavery was not an issue argument. Secession was a right denied. As you were told before, the concept of secession was not first attempted by the South. New England(I just blanked but I think it was them) first attempted it during the war of 1812. James Madison "impressed" them to not do it.

So as usual, I think people are reading things that are not there.

As to slavery; if i remeber right I showed you some of the documents that they gave and they mentioned Slavery was are reason several times.

Ah well. I get the idea, you will never be convinced so what the heck.

You would probably be taken more seriously if you read all perspectives rather then only Southern authors. Especially the "angry" ones that cry on that the South is so mirepresented.

A "good" historian tells you a story.

A person with an agenda launches insults and or emotion oriented claims.

Well if the south arguement is BS then show us one that is "pure".
Lincoln himself said that the war wasnt about slavery.

Well if the south arguement is BS then show us one that is "pure".
Lincoln himself said that the war wasnt about slavery.

he said that if he could save the union without freeing a single slave he would do it, he wanted to limit the expansion of slavery, he was content to let it die out over 100 years that was what he thought it would take, 1960's slavery? thank god for the war. besides the segregation issue was not involved with the war that was the NAACP etc later.

It would have died long before the 1960's.. The After the fact Secession states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) [what is meant by that, is the states that seceeded BECAUSE of Lincoln's delcared war, as opposed to any other contension], were already in the process of having slavery completely eliminated within a couple decades at most (Virginia had already made cross-borders slave trade illegal, despite the contension of New England slave traders as of the formation of the U.S.A.)...

More or less the Civil War worked like this...

Lincoln wins his first term.... his tarif platform upsets South Carolina, George and Alabama... they seceed...

Charlston asks for Fort Sumpter... Lincoln promises not to rearm or reman the fort, and to remove the troops from the Fort... S.C. agrees and provides food and medical supplied for the fort.

Lincoln sends a ship with more men and arms for the Fort, breaking his agreement with the S.C. Govenor... The Govenor find out about the arriving ship, and orders S.C. militia to fire upon the fort, and to halt shipments.

Texas, Mississippi and Lousiana, and Florida seceed.

The legislatures of Virginia and North Carolina send request to Lincoln to assist in reaching a diplomatic solution.... Lincoln ignores the two states, declares war on South Carolina; and promptly orders Virginia to start raising troops to invade the cotton states...

The Govenors of Virginia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas, upon receipt of Lincoln's message, tells him where he can shove it; and their legislatures begin to meet and call for county vote of anulment and disolution with the Union....

Lincoln and his Union troops spend the next three years, despite their better supply lines and superior numbers, getting his hind-end mopped by Robert E. Lee and the ANV... An error by one of Lee's leiutenants at Gettysburg, looses Lee's positional advantage, the battle goes on the next day, Lee's looses massive troops, and the ANV, nearly decimated is defeated within 6 months by the Union forces....

The rest of the Union Army mops up the rest of the South, removes the States rightfully elected legislatures, and imposes a martial government...

The only part Slavery played, was as political motivations to keep French support of the Union present, and distract England from lending any support to the Confederacy.

Well, there is a bad characterization of the southern states in general... I've seen racism all over the place, California, New York.... some of the most racist states are the new england states (it's just never been "violent" racism).

All I have to say is....

Virginia, housed the Capital of the Confederacy, and was the FIRST US state with a black Govenor :>
Another Virginian on here! Woo!

The guy from California is just angry because he pays all of that money in taxes and his state government just wastes it all away. If Alabama doesn't want to spend their money on school libraries that's their perogative. You folks in California have enough troubles in your own state to be worrying about good ole Bama.

Not every state in America can be as corrupt and wasteful as California, you're number one! You're number one! If you don't like how your state is being run you can either A) vote the guys out B) run for office yourself C) move to someplace you like better.

I like Virginia and the South, if you like it somewhere else, more power to you. I don't want to see people unhappy cuz all they do is whine and complain about it.

it depends what they're working with.

i know they can tell from a skull for instance, simply because well, generally say a black person will have a wider, flatter nose than a white person.

i dunno, to some extent they can tell regional descent for caucasians apparantly. (i watch too much csi, correct me if i'm wrong)

I've read studies on it coming from a genetic basis (which would be the most accurate in determining races).

Tests can *eaily* demonstrate a clear difference between...say...dog breeds - they are true biological races.

Tests cannot really demonstrate a difference between human "races" - as they have never been fully segregated long enough to form separate races.

There are factors that can point them in one direction or the other, but *none* of them are anywhere near fool-proof and can often lead to false information.

Another Virginian on here! Woo!

The guy from California is just angry because he pays all of that money in taxes and his state government just wastes it all away. If Alabama doesn't want to spend their money on school libraries that's their perogative. You folks in California have enough troubles in your own state to be worrying about good ole Bama.


:rolleyes:


Not every state in America can be as corrupt and wasteful as California, you're number one! You're number one! If you don't like how your state is being run you can either A) vote the guys out B) run for office yourself C) move to someplace you like better.


:rolleyes: