Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ted Nugent Agrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
69 views
Skip to first unread message
Sid9
Apr 20, 2012, 9:23:59 PM4/20/12
to
Ted Nugent Agrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal
prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne Anthony
Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not immediately
returned.
The plea agreement says Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in May
2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding a bear in a bow hunt, which
counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.
According to the agreement, the hunt was filmed for his Outdoor Channel
television show "Spirit of the Wild."
The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear in
misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act.
--
Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
solution and its always wrong!"
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal
prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne Anthony
Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not immediately
returned.
The plea agreement says Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in May
2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding a bear in a bow hunt, which
counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.
According to the agreement, the hunt was filmed for his Outdoor Channel
television show "Spirit of the Wild."
The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear in
misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act.
--
Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
solution and its always wrong!"
Meat : It's Whats for Dinner @whitehouse.org Obama's Sauteed Dog Meat Dinner
Apr 20, 2012, 9:31:27 PM4/20/12
to
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jmt27i$fdo$1...@dont-email.me...
> Ted Nugent Agrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>
> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
> transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
Details you left out purposefully included below.
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>
> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
> transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
Nugent, 63, launched an arrow at a black bear while on a bow-hunting trip
with friends in Tongass National Forest in May 2009. FNugent's lawyer says
the arrow grazed the animal and it scampered off alive.
Whether injured or merely scratched, the bear got away. Nugent shot and
killed another bear four days later.
By striking the first bear and killing the second, Nugent exceeded his bag
limit for Game Management Unit 2
There wasn't any blood trail that they could find," Ross said. "There was a
little blood apparently at the spot, but nothing that indicated the bear was
hard hit."
Nugent and his hunting buddies looked for the bear but didn't find it, Ross
said. "The bear didn't die. He only took one bear."
Read more here:
http://www.adn.com/2012/04/20/2433298/ted-nugent-admits-illegal-bear.html#storylink=cpy
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Apr 21, 2012, 8:39:50 AM4/21/12
to
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote on Sat 21 Apr 2012 04:23:59a
> Ted Nugent Agrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>
> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
> transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
>
> Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal
> prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
>
> Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne Anthony
> Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not immediately
> returned.
>
> The plea agreement says Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in May
> 2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding a bear in a bow hunt, which
> counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.
>
> According to the agreement, the hunt was filmed for his Outdoor Channel
> television show "Spirit of the Wild."
>
> The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear in
> misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act.
I was rather hoping it was a felony. That means as a convicted felon, he
loses his right to put a gun into his hands.
--
America's fascists, who are recognized by the name
"Republican" and "Teabagger," are the evil that festers
when good, decent people look on in apathy, doing nothing.
> Ted Nugent Agrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
>
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>
> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
> transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
>
> Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal
> prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
>
> Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne Anthony
> Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not immediately
> returned.
>
> The plea agreement says Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in May
> 2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding a bear in a bow hunt, which
> counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.
>
> According to the agreement, the hunt was filmed for his Outdoor Channel
> television show "Spirit of the Wild."
>
> The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear in
> misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act.
loses his right to put a gun into his hands.
--
America's fascists, who are recognized by the name
"Republican" and "Teabagger," are the evil that festers
when good, decent people look on in apathy, doing nothing.
Robert Fitzgerald
Apr 21, 2012, 3:22:12 PM4/21/12
to
On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:39:50 +0000, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote on Sat 21 Apr 2012 04:23:59a
>
>> Ted Nugent Agrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
>>
>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>> Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>>
>> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
>> transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
>>
>> Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal
>> prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
>>
>> Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne
>> Anthony Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not
>> immediately returned.
>>
>> The plea agreement says Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in
>> May 2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding a bear in a bow hunt,
>> which counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.
>>
>> According to the agreement, the hunt was filmed for his Outdoor Channel
>> television show "Spirit of the Wild."
>>
>> The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear
>> in misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act.
>
> I was rather hoping it was a felony. That means as a convicted felon,
> he loses his right to put a gun into his hands.
I know how you feel...
> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote on Sat 21 Apr 2012 04:23:59a
>
>> Ted Nugent Agrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
>>
>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>> Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>>
>> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
>> transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
>>
>> Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal
>> prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
>>
>> Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne
>> Anthony Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not
>> immediately returned.
>>
>> The plea agreement says Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in
>> May 2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding a bear in a bow hunt,
>> which counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.
>>
>> According to the agreement, the hunt was filmed for his Outdoor Channel
>> television show "Spirit of the Wild."
>>
>> The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear
>> in misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act.
>
> I was rather hoping it was a felony. That means as a convicted felon,
> he loses his right to put a gun into his hands.
I am enjoying Keith Olbermann's problems right now... Also enjoyed
thinking of how the guy with the dogsagainstromney-blah-blah website must
have felt when the Obama-ate-dogs story was publicized/used...
What was it Conan the Barbarian said?
"Conan! What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies -- See them driven
before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"
http://www.barbariankeep.com/ctbsecrets.html
Of course, the Death-of-Breitbart was a high point for many on the enemy
side... Although I don't think they appreciated all the praise/
reminiscing that went on among conservatives/libertarian types...
Always some good stories for each philosophy-flavor of person in the
news...
--
Bobby
Boo
Apr 21, 2012, 3:26:29 PM4/21/12
to
ate-dogs stories.... Although politically, I'm neutral so gained nothing
there... No hate, no love for people based on their political
philosphies... Just glad to see dogs getting it though!
(a dog bit me when I was little...)
--
Boo Fetus Radley, II
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 21, 2012, 8:50:49 PM4/21/12
to
On 4/21/2012 8:39 AM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote on Sat 21 Apr 2012 04:23:59a
>
>> Ted Nugent Agrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
>>
>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>> Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>>
>> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
>> transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
>>
>> Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal
>> prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
>>
>> Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne Anthony
>> Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not immediately
>> returned.
>>
>> The plea agreement says Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in May
>> 2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding a bear in a bow hunt, which
>> counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.
>>
>> According to the agreement, the hunt was filmed for his Outdoor Channel
>> television show "Spirit of the Wild."
>>
>> The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear in
>> misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act.
>
> I was rather hoping it was a felony. That means as a convicted felon, he
> loses his right to put a gun into his hands.
>
>
Good plan make 330 million Americans ALL felons just so you can get the
> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote on Sat 21 Apr 2012 04:23:59a
>
>> Ted Nugent Agrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
>>
>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>> Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>>
>> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Rocker Ted Nugent has pleaded guilty to
>> transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
>>
>> Nugent made the admission in signing a plea agreement with federal
>> prosecutors that was filed Friday in U.S. District Court.
>>
>> Calls seeking comment from Nugent, his Anchorage attorney, Wayne Anthony
>> Ross, and assistant U.S. Attorney Jack Schmidt were not immediately
>> returned.
>>
>> The plea agreement says Nugent illegally shot and killed the bear in May
>> 2009 on Sukkwan Island days after wounding a bear in a bow hunt, which
>> counted toward a state seasonal limit of one bear.
>>
>> According to the agreement, the hunt was filmed for his Outdoor Channel
>> television show "Spirit of the Wild."
>>
>> The document says Nugent knowingly possessed and transported the bear in
>> misdemeanor violation of the Lacey Act.
>
> I was rather hoping it was a felony. That means as a convicted felon, he
> loses his right to put a gun into his hands.
>
>
unconstitutional gun control you want.
--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Apr 22, 2012, 12:38:48 AM4/22/12
to
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote on Sun 22
Apr 2012 03:50:49a
So, right wing scum, are you suddenly against the rule of law when you are
your kind are on the other side of it??
It's funny how you don't protest this tactic when implemented by racist
whites in the Jim Crow southern states to keep blacks from having the right
to vote.
Apr 2012 03:50:49a
your kind are on the other side of it??
It's funny how you don't protest this tactic when implemented by racist
whites in the Jim Crow southern states to keep blacks from having the right
to vote.
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 22, 2012, 2:21:26 AM4/22/12
to
years before I was of voting age.
There is no Jim Crow Laws to protest.
You are suffering from the mental delusions called GROUND HOGS DAY
syndrome.... you never get past the same old tired issues that have
been dead and gone for decades or centuries.
I am personally happy that Blacks vote, it lets me know that my vote is
also safe from being stolen if I can help everyone else secure their
right to vote. We can find safety in numbers.
I have never owned a slave or denied anyone their right to vote for any
reason.... you have me confused with the Democrats of the PAST.
Message has been deleted
emoneyjoe
Apr 22, 2012, 4:33:45 PM4/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>years before I was of voting age.
>
>Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>
>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
Let's see how you answer this question,
"Does any person have the right to stay away
from any other particular person?".
As far as school busing goes, I would never
allow my kids to ride a school bus, I moved to
where they could walk to school, I never cared
who else was bussed to that school, I just
did not want my kids having to contend with
getting up earlier, chancing missing the bus,
and being subjected to the dangers of riding
the bus.
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>years before I was of voting age.
>
>
>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
Let's see how you answer this question,
"Does any person have the right to stay away
from any other particular person?".
As far as school busing goes, I would never
allow my kids to ride a school bus, I moved to
where they could walk to school, I never cared
who else was bussed to that school, I just
did not want my kids having to contend with
getting up earlier, chancing missing the bus,
and being subjected to the dangers of riding
the bus.
Orval Fairbairn
Apr 22, 2012, 10:25:54 PM4/22/12
to
In article <8kp8p7p0abqabdka0...@4ax.com>,
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
> >years before I was of voting age.
>
> >years before I was of voting age.
>
> Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>
> There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
Do you mean that they make you eat with the other morons?
>
> There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 22, 2012, 11:08:09 PM4/22/12
to
On 4/22/2012 4:14 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>> years before I was of voting age.
>
>> years before I was of voting age.
>
> Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>
> There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
I can't argue with stupid so you win the stupid contest.
>
> There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
Congratulations....
Message has been deleted
emoneyjoe
Apr 23, 2012, 12:50:15 AM4/23/12
to
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:10:22 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:33:45 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>
>The relevancy to the issue is the overt discrimination of lending,
>availability of locations, credit rating, resistance to approve
>acquisition of property or housing.
Isn't there some recourse for people of means?
If they don't have good credit, they are in the same
boat as many millions.
>3 separate (legitimate) news organizations have all published
>documentaries about the ongoing discrimination
I was aware of things like that in the early 1950s,
but assumed it was not standard policy for any
lending companies now.
There is something seriously wrong with the
whole credit card setup, I got an application in
the mail for a card with 36% interest and a $175
annual fee for a possible $700 credit card.
Is anybody that crazy, and why would any
company give credit to anybody hard up enough
to pay those fees and interest?
>And NO, you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
>associate with.
Well, that was what I thought, but you need
to explain it to me, I don't see how a mind operates
that thinks things like that, when I know for sure
a guy is doing things illegal, I stay away from him.
What moral or ethical or social thinking even
suggests I can't stay away and avoid somebody
I don't want to be around and that I don't want
around me?
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:33:45 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>>>years before I was of voting age.
>>>
>>>Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>>>
>>>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
>>
>> Let's see how you answer this question,
>>"Does any person have the right to stay away
>>from any other particular person?".
>
>How is that relevant?
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>>>years before I was of voting age.
>>>
>>>Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>>>
>>>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
>>
>> Let's see how you answer this question,
>>"Does any person have the right to stay away
>>from any other particular person?".
>
>
>The relevancy to the issue is the overt discrimination of lending,
>availability of locations, credit rating, resistance to approve
>acquisition of property or housing.
Isn't there some recourse for people of means?
If they don't have good credit, they are in the same
boat as many millions.
>3 separate (legitimate) news organizations have all published
>documentaries about the ongoing discrimination
I was aware of things like that in the early 1950s,
but assumed it was not standard policy for any
lending companies now.
There is something seriously wrong with the
whole credit card setup, I got an application in
the mail for a card with 36% interest and a $175
annual fee for a possible $700 credit card.
Is anybody that crazy, and why would any
company give credit to anybody hard up enough
to pay those fees and interest?
>And NO, you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
>associate with.
Well, that was what I thought, but you need
to explain it to me, I don't see how a mind operates
that thinks things like that, when I know for sure
a guy is doing things illegal, I stay away from him.
What moral or ethical or social thinking even
suggests I can't stay away and avoid somebody
I don't want to be around and that I don't want
around me?
Bob
Apr 23, 2012, 8:03:27 AM4/23/12
to
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:4rh9p79n8lceckbq5...@4ax.com...
news:4rh9p79n8lceckbq5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:33:45 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>>>years before I was of voting age.
>>>
>>>Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>>>
>>>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
>>
>> Let's see how you answer this question,
>>"Does any person have the right to stay away
>>from any other particular person?".
>
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>>>years before I was of voting age.
>>>
>>>Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>>>
>>>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
>>
>> Let's see how you answer this question,
>>"Does any person have the right to stay away
>>from any other particular person?".
>
> How is that relevant?
>
> The relevancy to the issue is the overt discrimination of lending,
> availability of locations, credit rating, resistance to approve
> acquisition of property or housing.
>
>
> The relevancy to the issue is the overt discrimination of lending,
> availability of locations, credit rating, resistance to approve
> acquisition of property or housing.
>
> 3 separate (legitimate) news organizations have all published
> documentaries about the ongoing discrimination
>
> documentaries about the ongoing discrimination
>
> And NO, you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
> associate with.
You failed to answer his question.
> associate with.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Bob
Apr 23, 2012, 11:06:48 AM4/23/12
to
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:ikpap7d3rv3i05eer...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:50:15 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
If you can support that statement, please do so.
news:ikpap7d3rv3i05eer...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:50:15 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:10:22 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:33:45 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>>>>>years before I was of voting age.
>>>>>
>>>>>Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>>>>>
>>>>>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
>>>>
>>>> Let's see how you answer this question,
>>>>"Does any person have the right to stay away
>>>>from any other particular person?".
>>>
>>>How is that relevant?
>>>
>>>The relevancy to the issue is the overt discrimination of lending,
>>>availability of locations, credit rating, resistance to approve
>>>acquisition of property or housing.
>>
>> Isn't there some recourse for people of means?
>>If they don't have good credit, they are in the same
>>boat as many millions.
>
> Applications for loans are routinely denied because of race.
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:10:22 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:33:45 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>>>>>years before I was of voting age.
>>>>>
>>>>>Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>>>>>
>>>>>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
>>>>
>>>> Let's see how you answer this question,
>>>>"Does any person have the right to stay away
>>>>from any other particular person?".
>>>
>>>How is that relevant?
>>>
>>>The relevancy to the issue is the overt discrimination of lending,
>>>availability of locations, credit rating, resistance to approve
>>>acquisition of property or housing.
>>
>> Isn't there some recourse for people of means?
>>If they don't have good credit, they are in the same
>>boat as many millions.
>
If you can support that statement, please do so.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Apr 23, 2012, 11:21:44 AM4/23/12
to
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote on Sun
22 Apr 2012 09:21:26a
The post you responded to, idiot, said NOTHING about "Jim Crow laws." Of
course de jure segregation and racial bigotry has been eliminated, but not
DE FACTO segregration and racial bigotry.
The disenfranchisement of blacks by making sure they are convicted felons is
the means by which racist whites now attempt to deny the right to vote to
these groups.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=133
The goal of criminal justice must include NOT only punishment but also
rehabilitation.
Those who have successfully completed their parole must have full
restoration of civil rights, from voting to your favorite: gun possession.
In addition government authorities must be forbidden from reporting or
disclosing a prior criminal history in their records. Moreover it must be
illegal to ask on job and other applications about a criminal history after
a certain period after which parole is completed.
It's time to end a lifelong scarlet letter.
Of course, I don't expect a piece of shit worthless right-wing scumbag like
you to be agreeable to this. If you were, you wouldn't be a piece of shit
worthless right-wing scumbag...the whole point of the difference.
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 23, 2012, 12:57:39 PM4/23/12
to
racist whites in the *Jim Crow* southern states to keep blacks from
having the right to vote."]
You see.... where it was saying something about Jim Crow laws.
I responded and I don't think I even had to call you an idiot. Your
Liberal spew just doesn't cut it, until now people let you bluster and
bloviate and we all ignored you as if you were just having a brain fart.
Those days are gone, get used to people challenging your silly ideas.
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 23, 2012, 1:03:27 PM4/23/12
to
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:03:27 -0400, "Bob" <n...@email.address> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And NO, you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
>>> associate with.
>>
you can't stop them from getting onto your property?
How does that work with GUNS? Can someone dressing in their choice of
holster and carrying their gun and exercising their RIGHT to bear arms
be stopped from getting on your property?
--
The problem with the global warming theory, is that a theory is like a
bowl of ice-cream, it only takes a little dab of bullshit to ruin the
whole thing.
- Gump That -
emoneyjoe
Apr 23, 2012, 1:40:10 PM4/23/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:03:27 -0400, "Bob" <n...@email.address> wrote:
I said "stay away from", I did not say "keep away",
and the from means my actions, not those of
others.
I accept that he may have felt discriminated
against at one time, but for his own sake, he
would be better off trying to forget, rather than
trying to remember.
Message has been deleted
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 23, 2012, 1:54:37 PM4/23/12
to
On 4/23/2012 10:35 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:03:27 -0400, "Bob" <n...@email.address> wrote:
>
>>>
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:03:27 -0400, "Bob" <n...@email.address> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And NO, you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
>>> associate with.
>>
>> You failed to answer his question.
Spend less and you'll need less regulation.
>>> associate with.
>>
>> You failed to answer his question.
emoneyjoe
Apr 23, 2012, 2:01:31 PM4/23/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:35:25 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:50:15 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>related to race and civil rights that we get exposed to week after
>week, year after year in documentaries, re-runs of documentaries,
>books, articles, interviews in all kinds of media?
>
>Of course you have to know which media is suspect, "painting a face"
>on the bad. For example: Faux snooze, WorldNetdaily, Drudge, a dozen
>or so magazines. They simply (tell you) that all the bad stuff is
>"gone". That position suggests they know you don't know and will
>believe it.
>
>You have to be conversant with argument and very definitly the
>"logical fallacy" in argument. Faux snooze is awash in present
>(so-called) news using logical fallacy to advance or mitigate
>conservative views. People who watch faux simply want what they
>ALREADY believe to be legitimized.
I was talking about me, if I want to move way
out someplace and stay in the house all the time
to avoid people in general, do I have that right,
or not, in your biased thinking?
I also want to avoid dogs, cats, vermin and
insects, birds and lizards. I went out to the
shed today to load up some junk iron, but birds
have built a nest by the door and there was
four eyes watching me, so I have to wait until
they start flying, then the nest goes in the
garbage, they can scream all they want.
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:50:15 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:10:22 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:33:45 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>>>>>years before I was of voting age.
>>>>>
>>>>>Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>>>>>
>>>>>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
>>>>
>>>> Let's see how you answer this question,
>>>>"Does any person have the right to stay away
>>>>from any other particular person?".
>>>
>>>How is that relevant?
>>>
>>>The relevancy to the issue is the overt discrimination of lending,
>>>availability of locations, credit rating, resistance to approve
>>>acquisition of property or housing.
>>
>> Isn't there some recourse for people of means?
>>If they don't have good credit, they are in the same
>>boat as many millions.
>
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:10:22 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 16:33:45 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 14:14:30 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 02:21:26 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>><ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>That would be.... because the Jim Crow laws were wiped out many many
>>>>>>years before I was of voting age.
>>>>>
>>>>>Institutionalized segregation was outlawed you moron
>>>>>
>>>>>There is MORE segregation today than in 1950
>>>>
>>>> Let's see how you answer this question,
>>>>"Does any person have the right to stay away
>>>>from any other particular person?".
>>>
>>>How is that relevant?
>>>
>>>The relevancy to the issue is the overt discrimination of lending,
>>>availability of locations, credit rating, resistance to approve
>>>acquisition of property or housing.
>>
>> Isn't there some recourse for people of means?
>>If they don't have good credit, they are in the same
>>boat as many millions.
>
>Applications for loans are routinely denied because of race.
>
>
>>>3 separate (legitimate) news organizations have all published
>>>documentaries about the ongoing discrimination
>
>>>documentaries about the ongoing discrimination
>
>Applications for loans are routinely denied because of race.
>
>
>> I was aware of things like that in the early 1950s,
>>but assumed it was not standard policy for any
>>lending companies now.
>
>It is more rampant now.
>>but assumed it was not standard policy for any
>>lending companies now.
>
>
>> There is something seriously wrong with the
>>whole credit card setup, I got an application in
>>the mail for a card with 36% interest and a $175
>>annual fee for a possible $700 credit card.
>>
>> Is anybody that crazy, and why would any
>>company give credit to anybody hard up enough
>>to pay those fees and interest?
>
>Actuarial computation show the profit/loss favors doing that
>> There is something seriously wrong with the
>>whole credit card setup, I got an application in
>>the mail for a card with 36% interest and a $175
>>annual fee for a possible $700 credit card.
>>
>> Is anybody that crazy, and why would any
>>company give credit to anybody hard up enough
>>to pay those fees and interest?
>
>
>>>And NO, you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
>>>associate with.
>>
>> Well, that was what I thought, but you need
>>to explain it to me,
>
>Why would I need to explain a major portion of American history
>>>And NO, you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
>>>associate with.
>>
>> Well, that was what I thought, but you need
>>to explain it to me,
>
>related to race and civil rights that we get exposed to week after
>week, year after year in documentaries, re-runs of documentaries,
>books, articles, interviews in all kinds of media?
>
>Of course you have to know which media is suspect, "painting a face"
>on the bad. For example: Faux snooze, WorldNetdaily, Drudge, a dozen
>or so magazines. They simply (tell you) that all the bad stuff is
>"gone". That position suggests they know you don't know and will
>believe it.
>
>You have to be conversant with argument and very definitly the
>"logical fallacy" in argument. Faux snooze is awash in present
>(so-called) news using logical fallacy to advance or mitigate
>conservative views. People who watch faux simply want what they
>ALREADY believe to be legitimized.
I was talking about me, if I want to move way
out someplace and stay in the house all the time
to avoid people in general, do I have that right,
or not, in your biased thinking?
I also want to avoid dogs, cats, vermin and
insects, birds and lizards. I went out to the
shed today to load up some junk iron, but birds
have built a nest by the door and there was
four eyes watching me, so I have to wait until
they start flying, then the nest goes in the
garbage, they can scream all they want.
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 23, 2012, 2:19:42 PM4/23/12
to
On 4/23/2012 1:51 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
OK, I'll pay this game. Is a corporation or business private owned
property or is it publicly owned property?
Can religiously dressed people be banned form your privately owned
store, lets say it's a members only store juts for laughs.
> Nothing idiot said referred to private property----the inference and
> issue was public policy and public access.
I noticed that but I figure that would be the point where the line is
drawn... when in reality there is no Federal power to force people to
treat people equally. There is the 14th amendment that requires the
Government to treat people equal. SO government property is the only
place ["you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
associate with."]
Unfortunately most Liberals have a problem with reading comprehension so
they don't know what the constitution really means, and they believe the
usual propaganda of the Leftists. I don't blame them for being stupid,
after all they went to government schools.
>> How does that work with GUNS? Can someone dressing in their choice of
>> holster and carrying their gun and exercising their RIGHT to bear arms
>> be stopped from getting on your property?
>
> Personally, I think someone with gun and holster ought to attempt it.
> We'd have a lot less gunwhores to deal with
They could just as easily have a bomb under their coat.... then the new
owners of your house would need to Clorox and clean you off the ceiling
and paint the place.
it's silly to fear someone killing you and whether they use a gun a bomb
a knife or a hammer.
I feel safe at a gun show or a gun range because I know that anyone
trying to kill any one of us there will meet with instant justice.
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 13:03:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:03:27 -0400, "Bob" <n...@email.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And NO, you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
>>>>> associate with.
>>>>
>>
>> So people using their religious RIGHT can dress in Religious clothes and
>> you can't stop them from getting onto your property?
>
> "your property" is the key word.
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 08:03:27 -0400, "Bob" <n...@email.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And NO, you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
>>>>> associate with.
>>>>
>>
>> So people using their religious RIGHT can dress in Religious clothes and
>> you can't stop them from getting onto your property?
>
OK, I'll pay this game. Is a corporation or business private owned
property or is it publicly owned property?
Can religiously dressed people be banned form your privately owned
store, lets say it's a members only store juts for laughs.
> Nothing idiot said referred to private property----the inference and
> issue was public policy and public access.
I noticed that but I figure that would be the point where the line is
drawn... when in reality there is no Federal power to force people to
treat people equally. There is the 14th amendment that requires the
Government to treat people equal. SO government property is the only
place ["you do not have the right to KEEP AWAY those you don't want to
associate with."]
Unfortunately most Liberals have a problem with reading comprehension so
they don't know what the constitution really means, and they believe the
usual propaganda of the Leftists. I don't blame them for being stupid,
after all they went to government schools.
>> How does that work with GUNS? Can someone dressing in their choice of
>> holster and carrying their gun and exercising their RIGHT to bear arms
>> be stopped from getting on your property?
>
> We'd have a lot less gunwhores to deal with
They could just as easily have a bomb under their coat.... then the new
owners of your house would need to Clorox and clean you off the ceiling
and paint the place.
it's silly to fear someone killing you and whether they use a gun a bomb
a knife or a hammer.
I feel safe at a gun show or a gun range because I know that anyone
trying to kill any one of us there will meet with instant justice.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Apr 23, 2012, 5:40:25 PM4/23/12
to
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote on Mon 23
Apr 2012 07:57:39p
Again, you demonstrate your goddamned idiocy.
Do you know the difference between "Jim Crow southern states" (my reference)
and "Jim Crow laws" (your reference)????
Take away "laws" from "Jim Crow" and what do you have in the reference to
"Jim Crow" in other contexts?
Or should I hold your hand a bit more, idiot child?
> I responded and I don't think I even had to call you an idiot. Your
> Liberal spew just doesn't cut it, until now people let you bluster and
> bloviate and we all ignored you as if you were just having a brain fart.
> Those days are gone, get used to people challenging your silly ideas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Apr 2012 07:57:39p
Do you know the difference between "Jim Crow southern states" (my reference)
and "Jim Crow laws" (your reference)????
Take away "laws" from "Jim Crow" and what do you have in the reference to
"Jim Crow" in other contexts?
Or should I hold your hand a bit more, idiot child?
> I responded and I don't think I even had to call you an idiot. Your
> Liberal spew just doesn't cut it, until now people let you bluster and
> bloviate and we all ignored you as if you were just having a brain fart.
> Those days are gone, get used to people challenging your silly ideas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 23, 2012, 7:11:24 PM4/23/12
to
place by Democrats.
I don't understand the difference between Jim CROW and Jim CROW...
explain it 100 times on the black board after you spend an hour on
reading compression.
Jim crow states refers to the states that had Jim Crow laws, the laws
don't exist so Jim Crow states don't exist, and if you mean the old Jim
Crow states well they are no more. The Republicans have managed to get
rid of that when they voted to end the Democrat filibuster of the 1964
civil rights act. The Republicans voted for the civil rights act in
larger percentages than did the Democrats, thus ending any jim crow
states, and democrats have NOT been able to enact the old JIM CROW LAWS
or create any NEW JIM CROW STATES.
I guess the Democrats gave up on that one and decided to concentrate on
getting abortions of blacks legalized and limiting the black vote
through abortion. It seems to be working so far, but those NORTHERN JIM
CROW STATES that fight to convince blacks they should be aborted are
still suppressing a million votes a year by killing them before they can
reach their 18th birthday.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Apr 23, 2012, 11:35:42 PM4/23/12
to
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote on Tue
24 Apr 2012 02:11:24a
[nonsequitur attack on Democratic Party deleted]
> I don't understand the difference between Jim CROW and Jim CROW...
> explain it 100 times on the black board after you spend an hour on
> reading compression.
The distinctive feature of the right-wing asshole---you, being but the
perfect example---is to try to distract from the fact that you have been
exposed as an idiot by an endless thread of last-word posts that focus on
tangents to put distance between you and your exposed-as-a-dumbass error.
> Jim crow states refers to the states that had Jim Crow laws, the laws
> don't exist so Jim Crow states don't exist, and if you mean the old Jim
> Crow states well they are no more.
No, Jim Crow states refer to states the practice the Jim Crow culture, which
may or may not include laws that impose that culture.
The Jim Crow culture still persists: and that is to use the law to
disenfranchise blacks through lifetime loss of rights as convicted felons.
But you will persist in pretending to have won the point, because as a right
wing piece of shit, it is essential not to lose face, or to be shown to be
wrong, or to be shown to be stupid.
[irrelevant attacks on Democratic Party deleted]
[deleted nonsequitur attack on Democratic Party]
24 Apr 2012 02:11:24a
> I don't understand the difference between Jim CROW and Jim CROW...
> explain it 100 times on the black board after you spend an hour on
> reading compression.
perfect example---is to try to distract from the fact that you have been
exposed as an idiot by an endless thread of last-word posts that focus on
tangents to put distance between you and your exposed-as-a-dumbass error.
> Jim crow states refers to the states that had Jim Crow laws, the laws
> don't exist so Jim Crow states don't exist, and if you mean the old Jim
> Crow states well they are no more.
may or may not include laws that impose that culture.
The Jim Crow culture still persists: and that is to use the law to
disenfranchise blacks through lifetime loss of rights as convicted felons.
But you will persist in pretending to have won the point, because as a right
wing piece of shit, it is essential not to lose face, or to be shown to be
wrong, or to be shown to be stupid.
[irrelevant attacks on Democratic Party deleted]
[deleted nonsequitur attack on Democratic Party]
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Sid9
Apr 24, 2012, 12:01:09 AM4/24/12
to
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:3r8cp7h4b2q9rhpo0...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:19:42 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, I'll pay this game. Is a corporation or business private owned
>>property or is it publicly owned property?
>>
>
> "Game" is the relevant word here.
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>OK, I'll pay this game. Is a corporation or business private owned
>>property or is it publicly owned property?
>>
>
>
> Numbnuts was attempting to say he had a right to refuse association
> with blacks related to housing. The issue is "more segregation" today
> than in 1950.
>
> There is.
>
> The loonytarian Paul's think it's okay to discriminate, refuse service
> in public facilities----IOW it was okay for Jim Crow to exist.
>
> Whatever lunatic crap you're doing isn't worth the effort to figure
> out.
Ron Paul for Romney's VP candidate!
emoneyjoe
Apr 24, 2012, 1:02:30 AM4/24/12
to
On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:57:04 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:01:31 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>Why wouldn't it be?
>
>And what does "my thinking" in relation to civil rights,
>discrimination, racism, and all sorts of rightwing bigotry have to do
>what what you just described?
It isn't "right wing" bigotry, every democrat
I have ever known was a bigot.
You did completely misread or misinterpret
what I asked, you have so much of a fixated
thought process it shows in everything you
write.
At least give people the benefit of doubt
before going on the discrimination rant.
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:01:31 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You have to be conversant with argument and very definitly the
>>>"logical fallacy" in argument. Faux snooze is awash in present
>>>(so-called) news using logical fallacy to advance or mitigate
>>>conservative views. People who watch faux simply want what they
>>>ALREADY believe to be legitimized.
>>
>> I was talking about me, if I want to move way
>>out someplace and stay in the house all the time
>>to avoid people in general, do I have that right,
>>or not, in your biased thinking?
>
>That's not even a serious thought.
>>>
>>>You have to be conversant with argument and very definitly the
>>>"logical fallacy" in argument. Faux snooze is awash in present
>>>(so-called) news using logical fallacy to advance or mitigate
>>>conservative views. People who watch faux simply want what they
>>>ALREADY believe to be legitimized.
>>
>> I was talking about me, if I want to move way
>>out someplace and stay in the house all the time
>>to avoid people in general, do I have that right,
>>or not, in your biased thinking?
>
>
>Why wouldn't it be?
>
>And what does "my thinking" in relation to civil rights,
>discrimination, racism, and all sorts of rightwing bigotry have to do
>what what you just described?
It isn't "right wing" bigotry, every democrat
I have ever known was a bigot.
You did completely misread or misinterpret
what I asked, you have so much of a fixated
thought process it shows in everything you
write.
At least give people the benefit of doubt
before going on the discrimination rant.
Message has been deleted
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 24, 2012, 12:30:39 PM4/24/12
to
You don't make history go away, by using your delete key.
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 24, 2012, 12:36:49 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/23/2012 11:54 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:19:42 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:19:42 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, I'll pay this game. Is a corporation or business private owned
>> property or is it publicly owned property?
>>
>
>> property or is it publicly owned property?
>>
>
> "Game" is the relevant word here.
>
> Numbnuts was attempting to say he had a right to refuse association
> with blacks related to housing. The issue is "more segregation" today
> than in 1950.
His own housing or selling or renting other housing or Government
>
> Numbnuts was attempting to say he had a right to refuse association
> with blacks related to housing. The issue is "more segregation" today
> than in 1950.
housing? Some housing discriminates against kids and some against
people under 55 years of age.
There is discrimination going on. Which discrimination is constitutional?
> There is.
>
> The loonytarian Paul's think it's okay to discriminate, refuse service
> in public facilities----IOW it was okay for Jim Crow to exist.
discriminate who you let in your house.
>
> Whatever lunatic crap you're doing isn't worth the effort to figure
> out.
You were telling us where it is bad, now tell us where it is legal.
Message has been deleted
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 24, 2012, 3:50:51 PM4/24/12
to
On 4/24/2012 2:23 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
Are you sure? The Fair Housing act has been passed, is it constitutional?
If so then the government can decide to whom you can sell your house.
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:36:49 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> "Game" is the relevant word here.
>>>
>>> Numbnuts was attempting to say he had a right to refuse association
>>> with blacks related to housing. The issue is "more segregation" today
>>> than in 1950.
>>
>> His own housing or selling or renting other housing or Government
>> housing?
>
> You can sell your own house to whomever you chose.
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> "Game" is the relevant word here.
>>>
>>> Numbnuts was attempting to say he had a right to refuse association
>>> with blacks related to housing. The issue is "more segregation" today
>>> than in 1950.
>>
>> His own housing or selling or renting other housing or Government
>> housing?
>
Are you sure? The Fair Housing act has been passed, is it constitutional?
If so then the government can decide to whom you can sell your house.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Apr 24, 2012, 5:23:02 PM4/24/12
to
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote on Tue 24
Apr 2012 07:30:39p
flailing (and failed) attempts to distract attention from the errors you have
made as a result of your stupidity.
emoneyjoe
Apr 24, 2012, 6:34:56 PM4/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:15:26 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:02:30 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
No, for being two-faced racists, only admitting
the fact in strict confidence.
There is nothing wrong with being a racist,
as long as no action is taken and being honest
and up front about it.
There has been a lot of attempts to repair
the damage done before the 1950s and 1960s,
but it is getting time for all minorities to work
together to get their neighborhoods up to par,
why should pampering continue forever?
>You DO know that conservatives OPPOSED all expansion of Civil rights
>and Civil liberties in the 60's, Right?
You do know that Ike did as much for civil
rights as Johnson, don't you?
>> You did completely misread or misinterpret
>>what I asked,
>
>You asked a nonsense question
Because I wanted to find out just how extreme
your thinking is.
I have had black friends, and have known others
that I would actually hide from, is it wrong for me
to do that?
>Predicated on totally unbelievable stupid beliefs and lack of
>understanding
I think you don't realize how stupid it is
to be harping on racial issues all the time.
I really don't think your mind works in a
rational way. When I see a white woman
with a black man it distresses me, but you
probably won't ever understand why.
I know that for every case like that there
is a lonesome black woman somewhere,
do you think as I do?
And white skin is dominant, so a child
has to be lighter than the darker skinned
parent.
That should bother those who would
want to perpetuate their race.
Just allowing anything to obsess the
everyday thoughts is silly, nothing should
ever be so important that it totally controls
thoughts and actions, should I spend all
day fretting because I am bald, or old,
or toothless?
Is there any other subject that you
ever think or talk about, this is getting
so old it stinks.
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:02:30 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>> I was talking about me, if I want to move way
>>>>out someplace and stay in the house all the time
>>>>to avoid people in general, do I have that right,
>>>>or not, in your biased thinking?
>>>
>>>That's not even a serious thought.
>>>
>>>Why wouldn't it be?
>>>
>>>And what does "my thinking" in relation to civil rights,
>>>discrimination, racism, and all sorts of rightwing bigotry have to do
>>>what what you just described?
>>
>> It isn't "right wing" bigotry, every democrat
>>I have ever known was a bigot.
>
>for supporting civil rights, civil liberties?
>>>> I was talking about me, if I want to move way
>>>>out someplace and stay in the house all the time
>>>>to avoid people in general, do I have that right,
>>>>or not, in your biased thinking?
>>>
>>>That's not even a serious thought.
>>>
>>>Why wouldn't it be?
>>>
>>>And what does "my thinking" in relation to civil rights,
>>>discrimination, racism, and all sorts of rightwing bigotry have to do
>>>what what you just described?
>>
>> It isn't "right wing" bigotry, every democrat
>>I have ever known was a bigot.
>
No, for being two-faced racists, only admitting
the fact in strict confidence.
There is nothing wrong with being a racist,
as long as no action is taken and being honest
and up front about it.
There has been a lot of attempts to repair
the damage done before the 1950s and 1960s,
but it is getting time for all minorities to work
together to get their neighborhoods up to par,
why should pampering continue forever?
>You DO know that conservatives OPPOSED all expansion of Civil rights
>and Civil liberties in the 60's, Right?
You do know that Ike did as much for civil
rights as Johnson, don't you?
>> You did completely misread or misinterpret
>>what I asked,
>
Because I wanted to find out just how extreme
your thinking is.
I have had black friends, and have known others
that I would actually hide from, is it wrong for me
to do that?
>Predicated on totally unbelievable stupid beliefs and lack of
>understanding
I think you don't realize how stupid it is
to be harping on racial issues all the time.
I really don't think your mind works in a
rational way. When I see a white woman
with a black man it distresses me, but you
probably won't ever understand why.
I know that for every case like that there
is a lonesome black woman somewhere,
do you think as I do?
And white skin is dominant, so a child
has to be lighter than the darker skinned
parent.
That should bother those who would
want to perpetuate their race.
Just allowing anything to obsess the
everyday thoughts is silly, nothing should
ever be so important that it totally controls
thoughts and actions, should I spend all
day fretting because I am bald, or old,
or toothless?
Is there any other subject that you
ever think or talk about, this is getting
so old it stinks.
emoneyjoe
Apr 24, 2012, 6:47:12 PM4/24/12
to
be fair, things like in 1969 when I had a thousand
dollars in a money belt and could not rent a place
to live because I had two young boys and no wife
is something I should complain about forever,
according to his way of thinking.
I don't fret, I take action, I rented a store front
with a back room and we lived there two years,
within walking distance of a school.
The world will never be fair, people who
want to discriminate will, as long as they do
it right and keep quiet about it there is not
a thing the government can do about it.
And how a person can be so convinced
that entire political parties can be one way
or another shows a weak mind that can't
reason.
There are bigots in both parties, the
question should be, which party has the
most bigots, and which party is honest
about the policy they actively support.
Message has been deleted
emoneyjoe
Apr 24, 2012, 7:28:26 PM4/24/12
to
he pleases, in fact he can rent his house to anybody
he pleases, they do it all the time, they take many
applications, have some code or device like a
pinhole or staple holes or whatever to mark
the applications as from an undesirable, and
then select one of the most financially secure
prospects.
Yes, they can get prosecuted, and do,
but only a small percentage of the violations
of law can be proven.
Message has been deleted
emoneyjoe
Apr 24, 2012, 10:38:47 PM4/24/12
to
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:01:35 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:28:26 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>That isn't the issue
>
>The issue was why there is more segregation today that in the 50's.
There isn't, in most cities in the 1950s, blacks
in particular, and even other minorities, bunched up
in one section of the city.
Now, even though there is still some bunches,
there is integration in housing in almost every part
of the city.
Small towns may not have any blacks, the
reason is skin color, not an issue of good or bad,
just that any person that is different is stared at
more than others.
Places where mostly renters live are not
kept up as well as where all homes are owner
occupied, making rent cheaper, and drawing
tenants with less income.
Give up on total equality in wages, housing,
wealth, or standard of living, that is a dream,
and is sure to end in disappointment.
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:28:26 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>If so then the government can decide to whom you can sell your house.
>>
>>
>> Actually a bigot can sell his house to anybody
>>he pleases, in fact he can rent his house to anybody
>>he pleases, they do it all the time,
>
>Yawn
>>>If so then the government can decide to whom you can sell your house.
>>
>>
>> Actually a bigot can sell his house to anybody
>>he pleases, in fact he can rent his house to anybody
>>he pleases, they do it all the time,
>
>
>That isn't the issue
>
>The issue was why there is more segregation today that in the 50's.
There isn't, in most cities in the 1950s, blacks
in particular, and even other minorities, bunched up
in one section of the city.
Now, even though there is still some bunches,
there is integration in housing in almost every part
of the city.
Small towns may not have any blacks, the
reason is skin color, not an issue of good or bad,
just that any person that is different is stared at
more than others.
Places where mostly renters live are not
kept up as well as where all homes are owner
occupied, making rent cheaper, and drawing
tenants with less income.
Give up on total equality in wages, housing,
wealth, or standard of living, that is a dream,
and is sure to end in disappointment.
Message has been deleted
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 25, 2012, 11:54:24 AM4/25/12
to
>>> If so then the government can decide to whom you can sell your house.
>>
>>
>> Actually a bigot can sell his house to anybody
>> he pleases, in fact he can rent his house to anybody
>> he pleases, they do it all the time,
I ran a motel for years and while I did... the NAACP and others were
>>
>>
>> Actually a bigot can sell his house to anybody
>> he pleases, in fact he can rent his house to anybody
>> he pleases, they do it all the time,
doing sting operations to catch anyone that was "discriminating" against
blacks. They would send in blacks and whites to rent rooms and see who
rented rooms equally to them and who didn't.
You know similar to what Brightbart.com did to ACORN....
I used posted rules for renting a room and stuck to those rules for
every last person that walked into the motel. So they could NOT
possibly sue/fine me.
I was responsible for keeping out drug dealers and prostitutes and yet
it couldn't be misconstrued to be keeping out any "one" race more than
any other race.
emoneyjoe
Apr 25, 2012, 4:42:53 PM4/25/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:35:43 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:38:47 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
Partly because the rent was lower, but mostly
because that was where the vacancies were, the
post-war building boom was suburban leaving the
oldest and poorest condition sections of town
empty and available to rent.
You may claim it was more discrimination,
but most of the building was private homes that
were pre-sold to individuals who had equity and
credit.
By 1970 a lot of those sections of town
were abandoned and uprooted by freeways,
possibly partly motivated by efforts to get
rid of the abandoned homes that were
being torched by vandals, coinciding with
a need to obtain low cost land for the
freeways.
Gossip may increase the thoughts
that focus on minority discrimination,
and there are people like you that seem
to be looking for an excuse to keep the
gossip going.
>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:38:47 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>The issue was why there is more segregation today that in the 50's.
>>
>> There isn't, in most cities in the 1950s, blacks
>>in particular, and even other minorities, bunched up
>>in one section of the city.
>
>And---why was that?
>>>The issue was why there is more segregation today that in the 50's.
>>
>> There isn't, in most cities in the 1950s, blacks
>>in particular, and even other minorities, bunched up
>>in one section of the city.
>
Partly because the rent was lower, but mostly
because that was where the vacancies were, the
post-war building boom was suburban leaving the
oldest and poorest condition sections of town
empty and available to rent.
You may claim it was more discrimination,
but most of the building was private homes that
were pre-sold to individuals who had equity and
credit.
By 1970 a lot of those sections of town
were abandoned and uprooted by freeways,
possibly partly motivated by efforts to get
rid of the abandoned homes that were
being torched by vandals, coinciding with
a need to obtain low cost land for the
freeways.
Gossip may increase the thoughts
that focus on minority discrimination,
and there are people like you that seem
to be looking for an excuse to keep the
gossip going.
emoneyjoe
Apr 25, 2012, 4:47:42 PM4/25/12
to
an apartment is different than a single home.
There was discrimination then, and there
still is, and there always will be, but most of
it will not be obvious.
I'm not sure how it could be done in a
motel, but it is easy to figure out how it was
done in private home rentals.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 25, 2012, 7:41:47 PM4/25/12
to
On 4/25/2012 7:27 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:54:24 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:54:24 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I ran a motel for years and while I did... the NAACP and others were
>> doing sting operations to catch anyone that was "discriminating" against
>> blacks. They would send in blacks and whites to rent rooms and see who
>> rented rooms equally to them and who didn't.
>
> Motels are public businesses
>> doing sting operations to catch anyone that was "discriminating" against
>> blacks. They would send in blacks and whites to rent rooms and see who
>> rented rooms equally to them and who didn't.
>
Privately owned business...
What constitutional power supports any law that says a privately owned
business should be told who they must sell a product to.
>> You know similar to what Brightbart.com did to ACORN....
>
Actually ACORN (their employees on the JOB) did offer to help a Pimp
get housing for 14 year old prostitutes...
I didn't do anything wrong because I had a public policy posted that I
consistently followed.
Message has been deleted
emoneyjoe
Apr 26, 2012, 12:13:10 AM4/26/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:28:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:53 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>You keep having a problem of not having enough education, common
>sense, historical advantage of seeing the sequence of why things
>are/were the way they are.
So driving a cab over a 20 year period and
seeing it all happen by a person with turtle recall
doesn't qualify?
The people originally living in the oldest homes
had the equity and credit needed to buy a new
home, which were being built in the suburbs.
Minorities with the lowest incomes rented
the homes with the lowest rent.
Anything else you make of will not have
the same logical assumptions.
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:53 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>> There isn't, in most cities in the 1950s, blacks
>>>>in particular, and even other minorities, bunched up
>>>>in one section of the city.
>>>
>>>And---why was that?
>>
>> Partly because the rent was lower, but mostly
>>because that was where the vacancies were, the
>>post-war building boom was suburban leaving the
>>oldest and poorest condition sections of town
>>empty and available to rent.
>
>Do you know why that was?
>>>> There isn't, in most cities in the 1950s, blacks
>>>>in particular, and even other minorities, bunched up
>>>>in one section of the city.
>>>
>>>And---why was that?
>>
>> Partly because the rent was lower, but mostly
>>because that was where the vacancies were, the
>>post-war building boom was suburban leaving the
>>oldest and poorest condition sections of town
>>empty and available to rent.
>
>
>You keep having a problem of not having enough education, common
>sense, historical advantage of seeing the sequence of why things
>are/were the way they are.
So driving a cab over a 20 year period and
seeing it all happen by a person with turtle recall
doesn't qualify?
The people originally living in the oldest homes
had the equity and credit needed to buy a new
home, which were being built in the suburbs.
Minorities with the lowest incomes rented
the homes with the lowest rent.
Anything else you make of will not have
the same logical assumptions.
Message has been deleted
emoneyjoe
Apr 26, 2012, 4:52:11 PM4/26/12
to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:25:05 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:13:10 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>intellectually honest.
I have no reason to say anything not true
and logical, I don't try to say there was never
discrimination, but the fact that not all of the
things you claim are true is important, there
was no big conspiracy and no wholesale
effort to discriminate.
There were communities where deeds
had a rider that supposedly restricted who
the property could be sold to but after Ike
signed the civil rights act those riders may
no longer have been valid.
>> The people originally living in the oldest homes
>>had the equity and credit needed to buy a new
>>home, which were being built in the suburbs.
>> Minorities with the lowest incomes rented
>>the homes with the lowest rent.
>
>It all had to do with the disparity of how Blacks and minorities were
>treated by white lending institutions, the white structure that had
>the ability to affect property values (governtment, city hall,
>realtors, developers, etc)
What does lending institutions have to
do with people renting?
Loans are made on the basis of an
individual's credit history and ability to
pay, I have an excellent credit history,
but can't borrow a dime because my
income is so low.
>It had to do with the deliberate exclusion of blacks in ability to
>migrate out of crumbling neighborhoods, being promoted fairly, paid
>properly, property evaluations, disparity of schools, ....a entire
>universe of deliberate (sometimes just a normal result of
>policy)---leaving minorities and blacks alone--out of the picture.
>(Segregation)
In your biased mind.
>> Anything else you make of will not have
>>the same logical assumptions.
>
>"logic"
>
>That isn't word that works well with your posts.
It does to people who think logically and
without bias.
The five or six of you that are fixated with
republican hatred are more of an anomaly than
normal thinking.
Yes there was discrimination, but the
people that could not afford anything but
the cheapest rents could not possibly
qualify for buying a home with no down
payment.
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:13:10 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:28:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:53 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> There isn't, in most cities in the 1950s, blacks
>>>>>>in particular, and even other minorities, bunched up
>>>>>>in one section of the city.
>>>>>
>>>>>And---why was that?
>>>>
>>>> Partly because the rent was lower, but mostly
>>>>because that was where the vacancies were, the
>>>>post-war building boom was suburban leaving the
>>>>oldest and poorest condition sections of town
>>>>empty and available to rent.
>>>
>>>Do you know why that was?
>>>
>>>You keep having a problem of not having enough education, common
>>>sense, historical advantage of seeing the sequence of why things
>>>are/were the way they are.
>>
>> So driving a cab over a 20 year period and
>>seeing it all happen by a person with turtle recall
>>doesn't qualify?
>
>You're not conversant with anything remotely considered factual or
>
>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:28:37 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:42:53 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> There isn't, in most cities in the 1950s, blacks
>>>>>>in particular, and even other minorities, bunched up
>>>>>>in one section of the city.
>>>>>
>>>>>And---why was that?
>>>>
>>>> Partly because the rent was lower, but mostly
>>>>because that was where the vacancies were, the
>>>>post-war building boom was suburban leaving the
>>>>oldest and poorest condition sections of town
>>>>empty and available to rent.
>>>
>>>Do you know why that was?
>>>
>>>You keep having a problem of not having enough education, common
>>>sense, historical advantage of seeing the sequence of why things
>>>are/were the way they are.
>>
>> So driving a cab over a 20 year period and
>>seeing it all happen by a person with turtle recall
>>doesn't qualify?
>
>intellectually honest.
I have no reason to say anything not true
and logical, I don't try to say there was never
discrimination, but the fact that not all of the
things you claim are true is important, there
was no big conspiracy and no wholesale
effort to discriminate.
There were communities where deeds
had a rider that supposedly restricted who
the property could be sold to but after Ike
signed the civil rights act those riders may
no longer have been valid.
>> The people originally living in the oldest homes
>>had the equity and credit needed to buy a new
>>home, which were being built in the suburbs.
>> Minorities with the lowest incomes rented
>>the homes with the lowest rent.
>
>treated by white lending institutions, the white structure that had
>the ability to affect property values (governtment, city hall,
>realtors, developers, etc)
What does lending institutions have to
do with people renting?
Loans are made on the basis of an
individual's credit history and ability to
pay, I have an excellent credit history,
but can't borrow a dime because my
income is so low.
>It had to do with the deliberate exclusion of blacks in ability to
>migrate out of crumbling neighborhoods, being promoted fairly, paid
>properly, property evaluations, disparity of schools, ....a entire
>universe of deliberate (sometimes just a normal result of
>policy)---leaving minorities and blacks alone--out of the picture.
>(Segregation)
In your biased mind.
>> Anything else you make of will not have
>>the same logical assumptions.
>
>
>That isn't word that works well with your posts.
It does to people who think logically and
without bias.
The five or six of you that are fixated with
republican hatred are more of an anomaly than
normal thinking.
Yes there was discrimination, but the
people that could not afford anything but
the cheapest rents could not possibly
qualify for buying a home with no down
payment.
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 26, 2012, 6:38:09 PM4/26/12
to
On 4/26/2012 12:09 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> Private own public businesses (restaurants, motels, stores) are
> subject to civil rights laws.
Where is that in the constitution? I say they're private property just
as you own your own home.
Are you suggesting the commerce clause is a civil rights law?
How do you know it's a public business, is a country club with members
only also public, is a Sam's club public, because they check member ID's
at the door and the "public" is turned away.
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:41:47 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>> Motels are public businesses
>>
>> Privately owned business...
>
> Not.
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>> Motels are public businesses
>>
>> Privately owned business...
>
>
> Private own public businesses (restaurants, motels, stores) are
> subject to civil rights laws.
Where is that in the constitution? I say they're private property just
as you own your own home.
Are you suggesting the commerce clause is a civil rights law?
How do you know it's a public business, is a country club with members
only also public, is a Sam's club public, because they check member ID's
at the door and the "public" is turned away.
Nickname unavailable
Apr 27, 2012, 12:33:45 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 24, 11:15 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
the modern conservative movement was built on racism:The Racism-
Conservatism Link: 'National Review' Firestorm Over Racism Calls Up
William F. Buckley's Troubling Legacy
http://www.alternet.org/news/155124/the_racism-conservatism_link%3A_%27national_review%27_firestorm_over_racism_calls_up_william_f._buckley%27s_troubling_legacy/
AlterNet / By William Hogeland
The Racism-Conservatism Link: 'National Review' Firestorm Over Racism
Calls Up William F. Buckley's Troubling Legacy
Did Buckley ever really renounce his defense of white supremacy in the
South?
April 24, 2012 |
The National Review's dropping of two writers -- one for publishing a
racist article in another publication, the other for giving a racist
talk -- has renewed discussion of that magazine's early positions
regarding race and the legacy of its founder and guiding spirit
William F. Buckley, Jr. Since Buckley's magazine was critical to the
success of the postwar right, mainstream conservatism's supposed
renunciation of racism has depended in part on a prevailing, little-
examined notion that having defended white supremacy in the South in
the 1950s, Buckley later apologized for that position.
His fans, both conservative and liberal, cite the apology. It's become
part and parcel of a contention that racism and conservatism are not
ineluctably connected.
But the aged Buckley was renouncing a position entirely different from
the one he'd actually advanced in the 1950s.
Writing in 1957 in defense of jury nullification of federal voting
laws, Buckley insisted that whites in the South were "entitled to take
such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally,
where they do not prevail numerically," because the white race was
"for the time being, the advanced race." In 2004, asked whether he'd
ever taken a position he now regretted, he said: "Yes. I once believed
we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal
intervention was necessary."
Nicely done. Where in '57 he'd asserted a right even of a minority of
whites to impose racial segregation by literally any means necessary,
including breaking federal law, in '04 Buckley expressed regret for
supposedly having believed only that segregation would wither away
without federal intervention.
Stupid the man was not. He gets credited today with honesty about his
past and with having, in his own way, "evolved up." Modern
conservatives, more importantly, get to ignore the realities of their
movement's origins.
Buckley did evolve, just not in the way his fans like to imagine. His
effort to construct working-class white Southern racists as an
advanced race was brief. (Given Buckley's ideas of what advanced races
like to do -- sail, listen to Bach, defend high culture against
barbarity -- it's not surprising if they disappointed him.) By 1965,
at a famous Oxford Union debate with James Baldwin, Buckley was
fighting what had already become a rearguard action on civil-rights
legislation, and he was taking a new position. Claiming now that
everybody already agreed that race prejudice is evil, he accused the
civil-rights movement of no longer seeking equality but the actual
regression of the white race. He announced that if it ever came to
race war, he was prepared to fight it on the beaches, in the hills, in
the mountains.
And he joked that what he really objected to was any uneducated
Southerner, black or white, being allowed to vote. That's less a
turnabout on equal rights for blacks than a retreat to a more
logically consistent snobbism, and the joke was serious: that same
year, James J. Kilpatrick put forth in the National Review an argument
mixing states-rights populism with ruling-class prerogative, warning
that federalism would be destroyed unless states were free to impose
voting qualifications, and that such qualifications must discriminate
equally, not racially.
Race nevertheless long remained a defining conservative issue for the
National Review. In a 1969 column, Buckley hymned the research of
Arthur Jensen on race and IQ, which showed blacks testing lower than
whites on abstract reasoning skills, a finding from which Buckley
deduced a racial imperviousness to improvement by education. In the
1970s the magazine persistently defended apartheid South Africa on the
same basis that it had once defended Jim Crow.
The problem isn't that old Bill Buckley gets a pass. If conservatives
today really mean to mark out an American conservative ethos with no
remaining ties to racism, wouldn't they need to reckon, far more
seriously and realistically than they seem prepared to do, with the
painful legacy of the postwar right when it comes to what was then
called racial integration? With the Cold War, integration was the hot
issue of the day -- and that was the day when the right wing was
taking over the Republican Party. Nelson Rockefeller was a fire-and-
brimstone Cold Warrior but hyperliberal on race; he was just the type
the Buckleyites were knocking out. Ties between conservatism and
straight-up, hardcore, undisguised disgust at the presence of African
Americans in any position other than servile were once so tight that
for some of us with long enough memories it's somewhat bizarre even to
have to review them.
And the deeper one digs into the history of race and the right wing,
the trickier things get. There's another remark of Buckley's that gets
him routinely credited with acknowledging, in old age, postwar
conservatives' error on race and personally recanting it: a comment he
made during an interview with Judy Woodruff in 2006 regarding his
opposition to the 1962 Civil Rights Act. "The effect of that bill
should have been welcomed by us," Buckley told Woodruff. He framed his
old objection to the act in terms of William Rehnquist's supposedly
having persuaded him and Barry Goldwater, when developing positions
for the Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign, to view opposition to
the act as an inescapable conclusion of the supposed strict
constitutionalism on which Goldwater was running, a position that
Buckley told Woodruff he'd since come to regret for its
"constitutional formalism."
Buckley's 2006 frame is a false one. Advancing states-rights and anti-
judicial-review arguments against civil-rights laws was nothing new to
Buckley in '63-'64, and his arguments certainly didn't depend on any
"formalist" urging from Rehnquist. By the time of the Goldwater
campaign, nearly 10 years of unrelenting objection to every form of
civil-rights legislation had appeared in the National Review, weirdly
blending the (supposedly race-neutral) "strict-constitutional"
argument with Buckleyite claims for the right of cultures deemed
superior by Buckleyites to violate the Constitution.
So if Buckley was really telling Woodruff in 2006 the only thing his
admirers can mean when they call his remarks an apology or a recanting
-- that he'd been persuaded in the '60s by a well-regarded legal
scholar to go along with a strict constitutional position that, while
intellectually sound, had some regrettable real-world ramifications
for black people, which Buckley only later came to understand and thus
to regret -- he was being preposterous.
But there's a more intriguing possibility. In 1952, Rehnquist wrote a
now-famous memo on Brown vs. Board of Education. The Times recently
revived a discussion of it, and of Rehnquist's denial that it
reflected his own opinion. That memo put forth an idea related in
interesting ways to Buckley's '57 "advanced race" essay.
In the memo, Rehnquist deemed the Supreme Court a poor place for
ruling on individual rights, suggesting that the Bill of Rights and
the Fourteenth Amendment can't be enforced by judicial review in
communities where those rights are opposed by a majority. That is,
they can't be enforced. "In the long run," Rehnquist wrote,
"majorities will decide what the constitutional rights of minorities
are." And that's at first what Buckley seemed to mean, too, when he
said in the '57 essay that the question of the white right to prevail
could not be "answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights
of American citizens, born equal."
But Buckley's '57 essay turns that already startling idea upside down.
It says that even a minority of whites has a right -- nay, a duty! --
to take measures necessary to prevail against a majority of blacks.
That kind of romantic, questing elitism did not fit the new Rehnquist-
Goldwater populism, which appealed to majority and states rights in
resisting federal enforcement of racial integration. Really, Buckley's
view revealed too much of what "states rights" was so often code for:
white supremacy.
Is it possible, then, that what Rehnquist actually advised Buckley
during the '64 platform discussions amounted to a request to tone down
the eccentric flights of derring-do, to get with the program of
pushing the rights of majorities in local communities over those of
the federal judiciary and legislature -- i.e., get with the right-wing
party line regarding segregation, which Rehnquist was even then
transforming from the fatalistic mood of his '52 memo into a positive
program for Goldwater's speeches?
And when Buckley said he regretted going along with Rehnquist, might
he really have meant he regretted relinquishing youthful, romantic
militancy about the rights of superior civilizations, and adopting
instead a dry, constitutional argument promoting mere white majorities
(often irritatingly low-class majorities at that)?
If so, Buckley's remark to Woodruff would at least make sense. And
Buckley often made sense.
Buckley's most quoted remark from the Woodruff interview is cryptic,
relying uncharacteristically on the passive voice: "The effect of that
bill should have been welcomed by us." How can "the effect" he's
talking about really be legislating equality for blacks (something
Buckley continued to object to, as I've pointed out)? That would be
weird. More likely the cagey old bastard meant conservatives should
have welcomed the effect of the Civil Rights Act on white voters in
the South. They of course did respond to its passage by flocking to
the Republican Party, an effect explicitly "welcomed" at the time by
Buckley, and by others who would soon be leveraging that effect for
the election.
In any event, it would be interesting to see conservative
intellectuals, not liberal ones, digging into this history.
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 01:02:30 -0400, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>> I was talking about me, if I want to move way
> >>>out someplace and stay in the house all the time
> >>>to avoid people in general, do I have that right,
> >>>or not, in your biased thinking?
>
> >>That's not even a serious thought.
>
> >>Why wouldn't it be?
>
> >>And what does "my thinking" in relation to civil rights,
> >>discrimination, racism, and all sorts of rightwing bigotry have to do
> >>what what you just described?
>
> > It isn't "right wing" bigotry, every democrat
> >I have ever known was a bigot.
>
> wrote:
>
> >>> I was talking about me, if I want to move way
> >>>out someplace and stay in the house all the time
> >>>to avoid people in general, do I have that right,
> >>>or not, in your biased thinking?
>
> >>That's not even a serious thought.
>
> >>Why wouldn't it be?
>
> >>And what does "my thinking" in relation to civil rights,
> >>discrimination, racism, and all sorts of rightwing bigotry have to do
> >>what what you just described?
>
> > It isn't "right wing" bigotry, every democrat
> >I have ever known was a bigot.
>
> for supporting civil rights, civil liberties?
>
>
> You DO know that conservatives OPPOSED all expansion of Civil rights
> and Civil liberties in the 60's, Right?
>
> and Civil liberties in the 60's, Right?
>
> > You did completely misread or misinterpret
> >what I asked,
>
> >what I asked,
>
> You asked a nonsense question
>
>
> Predicated on totally unbelievable stupid beliefs and lack of
> understanding
>
>
and here it is in black and white.
> understanding
>
>
the modern conservative movement was built on racism:The Racism-
Conservatism Link: 'National Review' Firestorm Over Racism Calls Up
William F. Buckley's Troubling Legacy
http://www.alternet.org/news/155124/the_racism-conservatism_link%3A_%27national_review%27_firestorm_over_racism_calls_up_william_f._buckley%27s_troubling_legacy/
AlterNet / By William Hogeland
The Racism-Conservatism Link: 'National Review' Firestorm Over Racism
Calls Up William F. Buckley's Troubling Legacy
Did Buckley ever really renounce his defense of white supremacy in the
South?
April 24, 2012 |
The National Review's dropping of two writers -- one for publishing a
racist article in another publication, the other for giving a racist
talk -- has renewed discussion of that magazine's early positions
regarding race and the legacy of its founder and guiding spirit
William F. Buckley, Jr. Since Buckley's magazine was critical to the
success of the postwar right, mainstream conservatism's supposed
renunciation of racism has depended in part on a prevailing, little-
examined notion that having defended white supremacy in the South in
the 1950s, Buckley later apologized for that position.
His fans, both conservative and liberal, cite the apology. It's become
part and parcel of a contention that racism and conservatism are not
ineluctably connected.
But the aged Buckley was renouncing a position entirely different from
the one he'd actually advanced in the 1950s.
Writing in 1957 in defense of jury nullification of federal voting
laws, Buckley insisted that whites in the South were "entitled to take
such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally,
where they do not prevail numerically," because the white race was
"for the time being, the advanced race." In 2004, asked whether he'd
ever taken a position he now regretted, he said: "Yes. I once believed
we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal
intervention was necessary."
Nicely done. Where in '57 he'd asserted a right even of a minority of
whites to impose racial segregation by literally any means necessary,
including breaking federal law, in '04 Buckley expressed regret for
supposedly having believed only that segregation would wither away
without federal intervention.
Stupid the man was not. He gets credited today with honesty about his
past and with having, in his own way, "evolved up." Modern
conservatives, more importantly, get to ignore the realities of their
movement's origins.
Buckley did evolve, just not in the way his fans like to imagine. His
effort to construct working-class white Southern racists as an
advanced race was brief. (Given Buckley's ideas of what advanced races
like to do -- sail, listen to Bach, defend high culture against
barbarity -- it's not surprising if they disappointed him.) By 1965,
at a famous Oxford Union debate with James Baldwin, Buckley was
fighting what had already become a rearguard action on civil-rights
legislation, and he was taking a new position. Claiming now that
everybody already agreed that race prejudice is evil, he accused the
civil-rights movement of no longer seeking equality but the actual
regression of the white race. He announced that if it ever came to
race war, he was prepared to fight it on the beaches, in the hills, in
the mountains.
And he joked that what he really objected to was any uneducated
Southerner, black or white, being allowed to vote. That's less a
turnabout on equal rights for blacks than a retreat to a more
logically consistent snobbism, and the joke was serious: that same
year, James J. Kilpatrick put forth in the National Review an argument
mixing states-rights populism with ruling-class prerogative, warning
that federalism would be destroyed unless states were free to impose
voting qualifications, and that such qualifications must discriminate
equally, not racially.
Race nevertheless long remained a defining conservative issue for the
National Review. In a 1969 column, Buckley hymned the research of
Arthur Jensen on race and IQ, which showed blacks testing lower than
whites on abstract reasoning skills, a finding from which Buckley
deduced a racial imperviousness to improvement by education. In the
1970s the magazine persistently defended apartheid South Africa on the
same basis that it had once defended Jim Crow.
The problem isn't that old Bill Buckley gets a pass. If conservatives
today really mean to mark out an American conservative ethos with no
remaining ties to racism, wouldn't they need to reckon, far more
seriously and realistically than they seem prepared to do, with the
painful legacy of the postwar right when it comes to what was then
called racial integration? With the Cold War, integration was the hot
issue of the day -- and that was the day when the right wing was
taking over the Republican Party. Nelson Rockefeller was a fire-and-
brimstone Cold Warrior but hyperliberal on race; he was just the type
the Buckleyites were knocking out. Ties between conservatism and
straight-up, hardcore, undisguised disgust at the presence of African
Americans in any position other than servile were once so tight that
for some of us with long enough memories it's somewhat bizarre even to
have to review them.
And the deeper one digs into the history of race and the right wing,
the trickier things get. There's another remark of Buckley's that gets
him routinely credited with acknowledging, in old age, postwar
conservatives' error on race and personally recanting it: a comment he
made during an interview with Judy Woodruff in 2006 regarding his
opposition to the 1962 Civil Rights Act. "The effect of that bill
should have been welcomed by us," Buckley told Woodruff. He framed his
old objection to the act in terms of William Rehnquist's supposedly
having persuaded him and Barry Goldwater, when developing positions
for the Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign, to view opposition to
the act as an inescapable conclusion of the supposed strict
constitutionalism on which Goldwater was running, a position that
Buckley told Woodruff he'd since come to regret for its
"constitutional formalism."
Buckley's 2006 frame is a false one. Advancing states-rights and anti-
judicial-review arguments against civil-rights laws was nothing new to
Buckley in '63-'64, and his arguments certainly didn't depend on any
"formalist" urging from Rehnquist. By the time of the Goldwater
campaign, nearly 10 years of unrelenting objection to every form of
civil-rights legislation had appeared in the National Review, weirdly
blending the (supposedly race-neutral) "strict-constitutional"
argument with Buckleyite claims for the right of cultures deemed
superior by Buckleyites to violate the Constitution.
So if Buckley was really telling Woodruff in 2006 the only thing his
admirers can mean when they call his remarks an apology or a recanting
-- that he'd been persuaded in the '60s by a well-regarded legal
scholar to go along with a strict constitutional position that, while
intellectually sound, had some regrettable real-world ramifications
for black people, which Buckley only later came to understand and thus
to regret -- he was being preposterous.
But there's a more intriguing possibility. In 1952, Rehnquist wrote a
now-famous memo on Brown vs. Board of Education. The Times recently
revived a discussion of it, and of Rehnquist's denial that it
reflected his own opinion. That memo put forth an idea related in
interesting ways to Buckley's '57 "advanced race" essay.
In the memo, Rehnquist deemed the Supreme Court a poor place for
ruling on individual rights, suggesting that the Bill of Rights and
the Fourteenth Amendment can't be enforced by judicial review in
communities where those rights are opposed by a majority. That is,
they can't be enforced. "In the long run," Rehnquist wrote,
"majorities will decide what the constitutional rights of minorities
are." And that's at first what Buckley seemed to mean, too, when he
said in the '57 essay that the question of the white right to prevail
could not be "answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights
of American citizens, born equal."
But Buckley's '57 essay turns that already startling idea upside down.
It says that even a minority of whites has a right -- nay, a duty! --
to take measures necessary to prevail against a majority of blacks.
That kind of romantic, questing elitism did not fit the new Rehnquist-
Goldwater populism, which appealed to majority and states rights in
resisting federal enforcement of racial integration. Really, Buckley's
view revealed too much of what "states rights" was so often code for:
white supremacy.
Is it possible, then, that what Rehnquist actually advised Buckley
during the '64 platform discussions amounted to a request to tone down
the eccentric flights of derring-do, to get with the program of
pushing the rights of majorities in local communities over those of
the federal judiciary and legislature -- i.e., get with the right-wing
party line regarding segregation, which Rehnquist was even then
transforming from the fatalistic mood of his '52 memo into a positive
program for Goldwater's speeches?
And when Buckley said he regretted going along with Rehnquist, might
he really have meant he regretted relinquishing youthful, romantic
militancy about the rights of superior civilizations, and adopting
instead a dry, constitutional argument promoting mere white majorities
(often irritatingly low-class majorities at that)?
If so, Buckley's remark to Woodruff would at least make sense. And
Buckley often made sense.
Buckley's most quoted remark from the Woodruff interview is cryptic,
relying uncharacteristically on the passive voice: "The effect of that
bill should have been welcomed by us." How can "the effect" he's
talking about really be legislating equality for blacks (something
Buckley continued to object to, as I've pointed out)? That would be
weird. More likely the cagey old bastard meant conservatives should
have welcomed the effect of the Civil Rights Act on white voters in
the South. They of course did respond to its passage by flocking to
the Republican Party, an effect explicitly "welcomed" at the time by
Buckley, and by others who would soon be leveraging that effect for
the election.
In any event, it would be interesting to see conservative
intellectuals, not liberal ones, digging into this history.
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 27, 2012, 1:54:49 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/25/2012 4:47 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:54:24 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:28:26 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If so then the government can decide to whom you can sell your house.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually a bigot can sell his house to anybody
>>>> he pleases, in fact he can rent his house to anybody
>>>> he pleases, they do it all the time,
>>
>>
>> I ran a motel for years and while I did... the NAACP and others were
>> doing sting operations to catch anyone that was "discriminating" against
>> blacks. They would send in blacks and whites to rent rooms and see who
>> rented rooms equally to them and who didn't.
>>
>> You know similar to what Brightbart.com did to ACORN....
>>
>> I used posted rules for renting a room and stuck to those rules for
>> every last person that walked into the motel. So they could NOT
>> possibly sue/fine me.
>>
>> I was responsible for keeping out drug dealers and prostitutes and yet
>> it couldn't be misconstrued to be keeping out any "one" race more than
>> any other race.
>
> A motel is different than an apartment, and
> an apartment is different than a single home.
>
I have worked in and managed all three....
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:54:24 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:28:26 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If so then the government can decide to whom you can sell your house.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually a bigot can sell his house to anybody
>>>> he pleases, in fact he can rent his house to anybody
>>>> he pleases, they do it all the time,
>>
>>
>> I ran a motel for years and while I did... the NAACP and others were
>> doing sting operations to catch anyone that was "discriminating" against
>> blacks. They would send in blacks and whites to rent rooms and see who
>> rented rooms equally to them and who didn't.
>>
>> You know similar to what Brightbart.com did to ACORN....
>>
>> I used posted rules for renting a room and stuck to those rules for
>> every last person that walked into the motel. So they could NOT
>> possibly sue/fine me.
>>
>> I was responsible for keeping out drug dealers and prostitutes and yet
>> it couldn't be misconstrued to be keeping out any "one" race more than
>> any other race.
>
> A motel is different than an apartment, and
> an apartment is different than a single home.
>
I have had the sheriff come out and post notice of eviction and over
seen evictions and tossed belongings out the door and changed the locks.
> There was discrimination then, and there
> still is, and there always will be, but most of
> it will not be obvious.
Private property RIGHTS say that you can use any reason you choose to
keep someone out of your home (Private Property) so the rest of your
Private property is the same, your car your pool and your bedroom.....
The place where there can be ZERO discrimination is "in or on"
Government property and government services and everything in the
government sector.
> I'm not sure how it could be done in a
> motel, but it is easy to figure out how it was
> done in private home rentals.
allow it to stop any personal property discrimination.... That can be
added to the constitution, but it does NOT exist today.
I only suggest that you and the government abide by the laws in the
constitution, right now the constitution is being violated.
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 27, 2012, 1:58:38 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/26/2012 12:09 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:41:47 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:41:47 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>> Motels are public businesses
>>
>> Privately owned business...
>
>>
>> Privately owned business...
>
> Not.
>
> Private own public businesses (restaurants, motels, stores) are
> subject to civil rights laws.
>
Can you post the constitutional power that those laws are derived from?
>
> Private own public businesses (restaurants, motels, stores) are
> subject to civil rights laws.
>
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 27, 2012, 2:10:10 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/25/2012 7:27 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:54:24 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:54:24 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I ran a motel for years and while I did... the NAACP and others were
>> doing sting operations to catch anyone that was "discriminating" against
>> blacks. They would send in blacks and whites to rent rooms and see who
>> rented rooms equally to them and who didn't.
>
> Motels are public businesses
>> doing sting operations to catch anyone that was "discriminating" against
>> blacks. They would send in blacks and whites to rent rooms and see who
>> rented rooms equally to them and who didn't.
>
>
>> You know similar to what Brightbart.com did to ACORN....
>
>> You know similar to what Brightbart.com did to ACORN....
>
> Fortunately, ACORN didn't do anything wrong.
ACORN aiding and abetting the child sex/prostitution of 14 year old
girls is just part of the Democrats war on women...
emoneyjoe
Apr 27, 2012, 3:00:46 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:54:49 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
Apparently you know, you must not have,
discriminated.
>Private property RIGHTS say that you can use any reason you choose to
>keep someone out of your home (Private Property) so the rest of your
>Private property is the same, your car your pool and your bedroom.....
Right, you can do anything you please, but,
will go to prison or pay fines if you do certain things.
>The place where there can be ZERO discrimination is "in or on"
>Government property and government services and everything in the
>government sector.
I hope that is not meant to be legal advice,
unless you have a sheepskin.
>> I'm not sure how it could be done in a
>> motel, but it is easy to figure out how it was
>> done in private home rentals.
>
>There is NO constitutional power delegated to the Federal Government to
>allow it to stop any personal property discrimination.... That can be
>added to the constitution, but it does NOT exist today.
>
>I only suggest that you and the government abide by the laws in the
>constitution, right now the constitution is being violated.
I suggest abiding by the law, and if you don't
like a law, try to get it changed.
If you were right about these things, nobody
would ever have been prosecuted for discrimination.
discriminated.
>Private property RIGHTS say that you can use any reason you choose to
>keep someone out of your home (Private Property) so the rest of your
>Private property is the same, your car your pool and your bedroom.....
will go to prison or pay fines if you do certain things.
>The place where there can be ZERO discrimination is "in or on"
>Government property and government services and everything in the
>government sector.
unless you have a sheepskin.
>> I'm not sure how it could be done in a
>> motel, but it is easy to figure out how it was
>> done in private home rentals.
>
>There is NO constitutional power delegated to the Federal Government to
>allow it to stop any personal property discrimination.... That can be
>added to the constitution, but it does NOT exist today.
>
>I only suggest that you and the government abide by the laws in the
>constitution, right now the constitution is being violated.
like a law, try to get it changed.
If you were right about these things, nobody
would ever have been prosecuted for discrimination.
BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 27, 2012, 3:38:06 PM4/27/12
to
*NO WHERE HAVE I EVER CLAIMED TO BE GIVING LEGAL ADVICE*
*I WOULD HAVE CHARGED YOU IF I WERE OFFERING ANY PROFESSIONAL ADVISE*
You are plainly an asshole and I have zero to discuss with you ever again.
Clave
Apr 27, 2012, 4:13:59 PM4/27/12
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4F9AE102...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
<...>
> ACORN aiding and abetting the child sex/prostitution of 14 year old
If you weren't such a lying sack of shit, you'd have nothing to say at all.
Jim
message news:4F9AE102...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
<...>
> ACORN aiding and abetting the child sex/prostitution of 14 year old
Jim
emoneyjoe
Apr 27, 2012, 4:50:46 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:38:06 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
Ok.
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/discrimination-settlements/
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/discrimination-settlements/
Nickname unavailable
Apr 30, 2012, 5:30:39 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 20, 8:31 pm, "Obama's Sauteed Dog Meat Dinner" <Dog Meat : It's
Whats for Dinner @ White House.org> wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jmt27i$fdo$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >TedNugentAgrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
>
> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> > Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>
> > ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - RockerTedNugenthas pleaded guilty to
> > transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
>
> Details you left out purposefully included below.
>
> Nugent, 63, launched an arrow at a black bear while on a bow-hunting trip
> with friends in Tongass National Forest in May 2009. FNugent's lawyer says
> the arrow grazed the animal and it scampered off alive.
>
> Whether injured or merely scratched, the bear got away.Nugentshot and
> killed another bear four days later.
> By striking the first bear and killing the second,Nugentexceeded his bag
> limit for Game Management Unit 2
>
> There wasn't any blood trail that they could find," Ross said. "There was a
> little blood apparently at the spot, but nothing that indicated the bear was
> hard hit."
>
> Nugentand his hunting buddies looked for the bear but didn't find it, Ross
> said. "The bear didn't die. He only took one bear."
>
> Read more here:http://www.adn.com/2012/04/20/2433298/ted-nugent-admits-illegal-bear....
ted nugent serial law breaker/terrorist threatener now booted from
performing before the army:now he calls army commanders
"bureaucrats":Commanders at the Fort Knox Army base in Kentucky cut
Nugent from their annual summer concert
http://gma.yahoo.com/ted-nugent-booted-army-concert-173051732--abc-news-politics.html
Ted Nugent Booted From Army Concert
By Amy Bingham | ABC News – 3 hours ago
Rocker Ted Nugent may have emerged unscathed from a Secret Service
investigation, but his verbal attack of President Obama is now
affecting his musical career.
Commanders at the Fort Knox Army base in Kentucky cut Nugent from
their annual summer concert after the controversial rocker told the
National Rifle Association he will "either be dead or in jail by this
time next year" if Obama is re-elected and blasted members of the
administration, saying conservatives should "chop their heads off."
"After learning of opening act Ted Nugent's recent public comments
about the president of the United States, Fort Knox leadership decided
to cancel his performance on the installation," Army officials posted
on the base's Facebook page.
Nugent said the concert cancellation was an "insult" and maintained
that he was merely exercising his First Amendment rights when he
toldthe NRA convention that Obama was running a "vile, evil, America-
hating administration."
"To think that there's a bureaucrat in the United States Army that
would consider the use or abuse of First Amendment rights in
determining who is going to perform at an Army base is an insult and
defiles the sacrifices of those heroes who fought for the U.S.
Constitution, Bill of Rights," Nugent told the Associated Press.
The often-outspoken rocker insisted that he never intended to threaten
the president or his administration. After meeting with Nugent in the
week following his remarks, the Secret Service dropped its
investigation into Nugent's possible threat.
Days before his meeting with the Secret Service, Nugent was
investigated by another federal agency, this time for allegedly
killing and transporting a black bear illegally from public land in
Alaska.
While filming an episode of his Outdoor Channel television show
"Spirit of the Wild" in May 2009, Nugent shot an arrow at one black
bear, drawing blood but not seriously wounding the animal, according
to the court papers.
He then continued hunting, killing a different black bear four days
later and transporting it off federal land. Under Alaskan law, hunters
can only kill or wound one bear per year, making Nugent's second shot
illegal.
While Nugent said he was unaware that wounding the first bear counted
towards his bag limit, he pled guilty to the charges last week in a
U.S. District Court in Anchorage.
"They've got apparently some crazy law in Southeast [Alaska] that says
if you even touch an animal with an arrow, it becomes your animal,"
Nugent's lawyer Wayne Anthony Ross told the Anchorage Daily News. "He
looked to see if he had hit it and didn't believe that he'd hit it
fatally."
Under a plea agreement with the federal prosecutors, Nugent has to pay
a $10,000 fine, is banned from hunting in Alaska or on any U.S. Forest
Service land for a year and has to create a 30-to-60 second public
service announcement about responsible hunting that will air during
his show every other week for a year.
Ross said the Alaska incident was "kind of embarrassing" for Nugent
because he is a known advocate for ethical hunting practices and gun
rights. Both Nugent and Ross sit on the National Rifle Association's
board of directors.
Alaska is the second state to prosecute Nugent for illegal hunting
practices. In 2010 Nugent pled no contest to charges in California
that he illegally baited a deer and did not have his hunting license
properly signed during a 2009 California deer hunt which aired on his
television show.
He paid a $1,750 fine for the offense, according to the Los Angeles
Times.
Whats for Dinner @ White House.org> wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jmt27i$fdo$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >TedNugentAgrees to Plead Guilty in Illegal Kill
>
> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> > Published: April 20, 2012 at 8:35 PM ET
>
> > ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - RockerTedNugenthas pleaded guilty to
> > transporting a black bear he illegally killed in southeast Alaska.
>
> Details you left out purposefully included below.
>
> Nugent, 63, launched an arrow at a black bear while on a bow-hunting trip
> with friends in Tongass National Forest in May 2009. FNugent's lawyer says
> the arrow grazed the animal and it scampered off alive.
>
> Whether injured or merely scratched, the bear got away.Nugentshot and
> killed another bear four days later.
> By striking the first bear and killing the second,Nugentexceeded his bag
> limit for Game Management Unit 2
>
> There wasn't any blood trail that they could find," Ross said. "There was a
> little blood apparently at the spot, but nothing that indicated the bear was
> hard hit."
>
> Nugentand his hunting buddies looked for the bear but didn't find it, Ross
> said. "The bear didn't die. He only took one bear."
>
> Read more here:http://www.adn.com/2012/04/20/2433298/ted-nugent-admits-illegal-bear....
ted nugent serial law breaker/terrorist threatener now booted from
performing before the army:now he calls army commanders
"bureaucrats":Commanders at the Fort Knox Army base in Kentucky cut
Nugent from their annual summer concert
http://gma.yahoo.com/ted-nugent-booted-army-concert-173051732--abc-news-politics.html
Ted Nugent Booted From Army Concert
By Amy Bingham | ABC News – 3 hours ago
Rocker Ted Nugent may have emerged unscathed from a Secret Service
investigation, but his verbal attack of President Obama is now
affecting his musical career.
Commanders at the Fort Knox Army base in Kentucky cut Nugent from
their annual summer concert after the controversial rocker told the
National Rifle Association he will "either be dead or in jail by this
time next year" if Obama is re-elected and blasted members of the
administration, saying conservatives should "chop their heads off."
"After learning of opening act Ted Nugent's recent public comments
about the president of the United States, Fort Knox leadership decided
to cancel his performance on the installation," Army officials posted
on the base's Facebook page.
Nugent said the concert cancellation was an "insult" and maintained
that he was merely exercising his First Amendment rights when he
toldthe NRA convention that Obama was running a "vile, evil, America-
hating administration."
"To think that there's a bureaucrat in the United States Army that
would consider the use or abuse of First Amendment rights in
determining who is going to perform at an Army base is an insult and
defiles the sacrifices of those heroes who fought for the U.S.
Constitution, Bill of Rights," Nugent told the Associated Press.
The often-outspoken rocker insisted that he never intended to threaten
the president or his administration. After meeting with Nugent in the
week following his remarks, the Secret Service dropped its
investigation into Nugent's possible threat.
Days before his meeting with the Secret Service, Nugent was
investigated by another federal agency, this time for allegedly
killing and transporting a black bear illegally from public land in
Alaska.
While filming an episode of his Outdoor Channel television show
"Spirit of the Wild" in May 2009, Nugent shot an arrow at one black
bear, drawing blood but not seriously wounding the animal, according
to the court papers.
He then continued hunting, killing a different black bear four days
later and transporting it off federal land. Under Alaskan law, hunters
can only kill or wound one bear per year, making Nugent's second shot
illegal.
While Nugent said he was unaware that wounding the first bear counted
towards his bag limit, he pled guilty to the charges last week in a
U.S. District Court in Anchorage.
"They've got apparently some crazy law in Southeast [Alaska] that says
if you even touch an animal with an arrow, it becomes your animal,"
Nugent's lawyer Wayne Anthony Ross told the Anchorage Daily News. "He
looked to see if he had hit it and didn't believe that he'd hit it
fatally."
Under a plea agreement with the federal prosecutors, Nugent has to pay
a $10,000 fine, is banned from hunting in Alaska or on any U.S. Forest
Service land for a year and has to create a 30-to-60 second public
service announcement about responsible hunting that will air during
his show every other week for a year.
Ross said the Alaska incident was "kind of embarrassing" for Nugent
because he is a known advocate for ethical hunting practices and gun
rights. Both Nugent and Ross sit on the National Rifle Association's
board of directors.
Alaska is the second state to prosecute Nugent for illegal hunting
practices. In 2010 Nugent pled no contest to charges in California
that he illegally baited a deer and did not have his hunting license
properly signed during a 2009 California deer hunt which aired on his
television show.
He paid a $1,750 fine for the offense, according to the Los Angeles
Times.
0 new messages