Which RGPers will stand up...

[O-PGManager]

and defend "separate but equal" - still going strong in 2013!

--------------
In a world full of color, Wilcox County High School still sees things in
black and white. White and black students have different prom and
homecoming dances.

"There's a white prom and then we have our integrated prom," said
Bloodworth.

If any race other than Caucasian tries to attend the white prom,
Bloodworth said they "would probably have the police come out there and
escort them off the premises."

That was the case just last year as a biracial student was turned away by
police.

It's been that way for as long as anyone can remember, and it doesn't stop
at prom - homecoming is also segregated.

----------------------
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/21866345/georgia-high-school-students-organize-first-integrated-prom
Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[Dave the Clueless]

I wonder if whites are welcome at the black prom...

-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 8 2013 12:50 PM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 1:44 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > and defend "separate but equal" - still going strong in 2013!
> >
> > --------------
> > In a world full of color, Wilcox County High School still sees things in
> > black and white. White and black students have different prom and
> > homecoming dances.
> >
> > "There's a white prom and then we have our integrated prom," said
> > Bloodworth.
> >
> > If any race other than Caucasian tries to attend the white prom,
> > Bloodworth said they "would probably have the police come out there and
> > escort them off the premises."
> >
> > That was the case just last year as a biracial student was turned away by
> > police.
> >
> > It's been that way for as long as anyone can remember, and it doesn't stop
> > at prom - homecoming is also segregated.
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
>
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/21866345/georgia-high-school-students-organize-first-integrated-prom
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> I wonder if whites are welcome at the black prom...

I was just about to pre-empt this comment, thinking that PICKLE would
idiotically not read the article and jump to the wrong conclusion... and
make some kind of "well the black people are just as racist" comment.

Read the article... the black prom is INTEGRATED... anyone is free to
come... the other prom is whites only and enforced by police with guns.

You beat Pickle of all people, to the idiot punch, you should hang your
head in shame Dave.

>
> -------
> JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
> American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
> the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
> What a moron!!!

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 8 2013 10:44 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> and defend "separate but equal" - still going strong in 2013!
>
>

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/21866345/georgia-high-school-students-organize-first-integrated-prom

"Wilcox County High School does not have an official, school-sponsored
prom, or even a stance on the issue. This means that the private proms
sponsored by students, and their parents, are legal."

another illiterate idiot. fraternities must allow women!

mo_ntresor

[O-PGManager]

Legality is not the issue moron. (Although when an armed police officer
forcefully keeps out a student based on his race - looks like government
sponsored racial discrimination to me.)

[brewmaster]

On Apr 8 2013 9:50 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 1:44 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > and defend "separate but equal" - still going strong in 2013!
> >
> > --------------
> > In a world full of color, Wilcox County High School still sees things in
> > black and white. White and black students have different prom and
> > homecoming dances.
> >
> > "There's a white prom and then we have our integrated prom," said
> > Bloodworth.
> >
> > If any race other than Caucasian tries to attend the white prom,
> > Bloodworth said they "would probably have the police come out there and
> > escort them off the premises."
> >
> > That was the case just last year as a biracial student was turned away by
> > police.
> >
> > It's been that way for as long as anyone can remember, and it doesn't stop
> > at prom - homecoming is also segregated.
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
>
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/21866345/georgia-high-school-students-organize-first-integrated-prom
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> I wonder if whites are welcome at the black prom...

This guy would be allowed (this is a "Canadian black guy")...

http://www.trailerparkboys411.com/images/j-roc.jpg

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 8 2013 1:08 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 11:05 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > > "Wilcox County High School does not have an official, school-sponsored
> > > prom, or even a stance on the issue. This means that the private proms
> > > sponsored by students, and their parents, are legal."
> > >
> > > another illiterate idiot. fraternities must allow women!
> >

> > Legality is not the issue moron. (Although when an armed police officer
> > forcefully keeps out a student based on his race - looks like government
> > sponsored racial discrimination to me.)
>

> no, freedom is the issue. you fuck it up routinely, but freedom doesn't
> mean freedom FOR YOU, it means freedom for OTHERS you might not agree with.
>
> mo_ntresor

Mo Ron ladies and gentlemen.... finally, someone stands up for Jim Crowe
America. "Whites Only" Barbershops.... freedom!!

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 8 2013 11:10 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> > no, freedom is the issue. you fuck it up routinely, but freedom doesn't
> > mean freedom FOR YOU, it means freedom for OTHERS you might not agree with.
>

> Mo Ron ladies and gentlemen.... finally, someone stands up for Jim Crowe
> America. "Whites Only" Barbershops.... freedom!!

strawman.

mo_ntresor

[brewmaster]

On Apr 8 2013 10:05 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 1:00 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8 2013 10:44 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > and defend "separate but equal" - still going strong in 2013!
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/21866345/georgia-high-school-students-organize-first-integrated-prom
> >
> > "Wilcox County High School does not have an official, school-sponsored
> > prom, or even a stance on the issue. This means that the private proms
> > sponsored by students, and their parents, are legal."
> >
> > another illiterate idiot. fraternities must allow women!
> >
> > mo_ntresor
>
> Legality is not the issue moron. (Although when an armed police officer
> forcefully keeps out a student based on his race - looks like government
> sponsored racial discrimination to me.)

Private clubs can make all their own rules they want. They can allow
smoking in a public place, they can keep out women, they can keep out
blacks, they can keep out whites, it isn't up to you.

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 8 2013 11:05 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> > "Wilcox County High School does not have an official, school-sponsored
> > prom, or even a stance on the issue. This means that the private proms
> > sponsored by students, and their parents, are legal."
> >
> > another illiterate idiot. fraternities must allow women!
>

> Legality is not the issue moron. (Although when an armed police officer
> forcefully keeps out a student based on his race - looks like government
> sponsored racial discrimination to me.)

no, freedom is the issue. you fuck it up routinely, but freedom doesn't
mean freedom FOR YOU, it means freedom for OTHERS you might not agree with.

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

Can't we talk about something other than racism once in a while?

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 8 2013 11:14 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> > Private clubs can make all their own rules they want. They can allow
> > smoking in a public place, they can keep out women, they can keep out
> > blacks, they can keep out whites, it isn't up to you.
>

> Again, not debating the legality of "whites only" proms. I'm saying it's
> shameful and a complete embarrassment. Apparently none of you agree.

does this pass for logic at law school?

mo_ntresor

[O-PGManager]

Again, not debating the legality of "whites only" proms. I'm saying it's
shameful and a complete embarrassment. Apparently none of you agree.

>
> >
> >

[risky biz]

It's a valid question. I don't know where you live but some young blacks
prefer to be separate from whites.

In any case, this article is about a prom that is not sponsored by the
school. It's a private event. No one has any right to tell someone else
who they can invite to a private party.

The students have the right idea in organizing a private non-racially
exclusive event. It seems from the article that a lot of the students of
all races support the idea. When students have to decide between one or
the other I think most of them will eventually reject the racially
exclusive event, even in south Georgia.

The invitation list of the event they're discussing probably also is
selectively focused on upper-class whites, at least for that area.

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 8 2013 11:18 AM, risky biz wrote:

> It's a valid question. I don't know where you live but some young blacks
> prefer to be separate from whites.
>
> In any case, this article is about a prom that is not sponsored by the
> school. It's a private event. No one has any right to tell someone else
> who they can invite to a private party.
>
> The students have the right idea in organizing a private non-racially
> exclusive event. It seems from the article that a lot of the students of
> all races support the idea. When students have to decide between one or
> the other I think most of them will eventually reject the racially
> exclusive event, even in south Georgia.
>
> The invitation list of the event they're discussing probably also is
> selectively focused on upper-class whites, at least for that area.

government enforced racial quotas at school cafeteria tables!

mo_ntresor

[O-PGManager]

It's not a valid question because the police have never stopped a biracial
person from entering the black prom.

>
> In any case, this article is about a prom that is not sponsored by the
> school. It's a private event.

Separate issue - but this is nonsense - there are signs all over the
school, school committees are helping to organize it, it's covered in the
school yearbook, elections for king and queen occur on school grounds
during school hours. This is school sanctioned.

No one has any right to tell someone else
> who they can invite to a private party.
>
> The students have the right idea in organizing a private non-racially
> exclusive event. It seems from the article that a lot of the students of
> all races support the idea. When students have to decide between one or
> the other I think most of them will eventually reject the racially
> exclusive event, even in south Georgia.
>
> The invitation list of the event they're discussing probably also is
> selectively focused on upper-class whites, at least for that area.
>
> > > -------
> > > JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is
an
> > > American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
> > > the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
> > > What a moron!!!
> >
> >
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[O-PGManager]

What strawman? Isn't the 'whites only' barber having his freedom taken
away by the government?

[brewmaster]

On Apr 8 2013 11:06 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 1:13 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8 2013 11:10 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > > no, freedom is the issue. you fuck it up routinely, but freedom
doesn't
> > > > mean freedom FOR YOU, it means freedom for OTHERS you might not agree
> with.
> > >
> > > Mo Ron ladies and gentlemen.... finally, someone stands up for Jim Crowe
> > > America. "Whites Only" Barbershops.... freedom!!
> >
> > strawman.
> >
> > mo_ntresor
>
> What strawman? Isn't the 'whites only' barber having his freedom taken
> away by the government?

If you passed a barber shop that had a sign that said "private barber,
blondes only, inquire within for membership information", would you be
offended by that?

[BillB]

On 08/04/2013 10:14 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Again, not debating the legality of "whites only" proms. I'm saying it's
> shameful and a complete embarrassment. Apparently none of you agree.

Black people understand perfectly why there is "white only" prom. The
right-wing idiots here can play dumb all they want. I find it amusing.

[brattt]

On Apr 8 2013 12:14 PM, O-PGManager wrote:


> Again, not debating the legality of "whites only" proms. I'm saying it's
> shameful and a complete embarrassment. Apparently none of you agree.

There are a lot of shameful things that are legal. Let's talk abortion.
Let's talk banning mothers from feeding their children as they see fit.
This is one of many and only gets the hype because it is racially
motivated.

I get more POd at MSNBC saying our kids aren't our own.


---------------------------------------------------------
In context quotes

On Mar 20 2013 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Try checking out North Dakota's new law. Women can't even get birth
control pulls.

Jerry wrote on: /Dec 18 2012
I'm willing to allow police to be the only people allowed to be armed, and
to give them the power to stop and search anybody at any time, and to get
warrants to search any home. I want the penalty of owning or carrying a
weapon to be life in prison. And I don't want any further discussion on
that. The time has come.

[risky biz]

You asked who would defend it. Delineating the issue is not defending it.
What is this supposed to be- an altar call against racism? That kind of
puts off people who might agree with you otherwise. Another issu is that I
doubt very much that this event was billed anywhere as being open only to
whites. It's probably attended by invitation only and all the invitees are
white. That isn't quite the same thing as declaring it "white only'. It's
a more devious racism. Kind of like Canada's immigration policies.

[da pickle]

LOL

[Dave the Clueless]

BillBigot, Speaker of the Blacks

[Truthseeker]

On 4/8/13 12:09 PM, brewmaster wrote:

> If you passed a barber shop that had a sign that said "private barber,
> blondes only, inquire within for membership information", would you be
> offended by that?

No. Why would I?

BTW, did you know that the Senate barber shop is run by the government,
pays no rent and is taxpayer subsidized ($300,000 last year), while the
House barber shop is a private business, pays rent to the government,
receives no subsidies and makes a profit?


--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[da pickle]

On 4/8/2013 11:57 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>> I wonder if whites are welcome at the black prom...
>
> I was just about to pre-empt this comment, thinking that PICKLE would
> idiotically not read the article and jump to the wrong conclusion... and
> make some kind of "well the black people are just as racist" comment.
>
> Read the article... the black prom is INTEGRATED... anyone is free to
> come... the other prom is whites only and enforced by police with guns.
>
> You beat Pickle of all people, to the idiot punch, you should hang your
> head in shame Dave.

Calm down ... I think that people can have private parties and invite
who they want to invite. I find using the color of skin as a marker to
be quite reprehensible. However, as far as private parties are
concerned, I suspect that most of the folks invited to some parties are
"segregated" in many other ways other than the color of the
invitors/invitees skin. Tattoos might be a reason, as just one example,
or "wealth" as another, why certain folks might be or not be invited.

There are plenty of folks that DO discriminate and have negative or
positive feelings about other people just because of the color of their
skin. BillB is a perfect example of someone who seems to think along
those lines.

[da pickle]

On 4/8/2013 1:46 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 4/8/13 12:09 PM, brewmaster wrote:
>
>> If you passed a barber shop that had a sign that said "private barber,
>> blondes only, inquire within for membership information", would you be
>> offended by that?
>
> No. Why would I?
>
> BTW, did you know that the Senate barber shop is run by the government,
> pays no rent and is taxpayer subsidized ($300,000 last year), while the
> House barber shop is a private business, pays rent to the government,
> receives no subsidies and makes a profit?

It was not always that way. The House was once a "loser" too. They
privatized. You can bet that the sequestration will not clip anyone in
the Senate.

[O-PGManager]

Emphasizing how they are legally within their rights (debatable) and
failing to acknowledge there is anything morally despicable about it is a
defense.

> What is this supposed to be- an altar call against racism? That kind of
> puts off people who might agree with you otherwise. Another issu is that I
> doubt very much that this event was billed anywhere as being open only to
> whites. It's probably attended by invitation only and all the invitees are
> white. That isn't quite the same thing as declaring it "white only'. It's
> a more devious racism. Kind of like Canada's immigration policies.

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 8 2013 2:17 PM, risky biz wrote:

> It's probably attended by invitation only and all the invitees are
> white. That isn't quite the same thing as declaring it "white only'.

On what basis are you pulling this out of your ass? While I don't know
for sure, I'd bet 10-1 these racist southerners didn't bother jumping
through this legal hoop formality.

[VegasJerry]

On Monday, April 8, 2013 9:50:23 AM UTC-7, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 1:44 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > and defend "separate but equal" - still going strong in 2013!
> >

> > --------------
> > In a world full of color, Wilcox County High School still sees things in
> > black and white. White and black students have different prom and
> > homecoming dances.
> >
> > "There's a white prom and then we have our integrated prom," said
> > Bloodworth.
> >
> > If any race other than Caucasian tries to attend the white prom,
> > Bloodworth said they "would probably have the police come out there and
> > escort them off the premises."
> >
> > That was the case just last year as a biracial student was turned away by
> > police.
> >
> > It's been that way for as long as anyone can remember, and it doesn't stop
> > at prom - homecoming is also segregated.
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/21866345/georgia-high-school-students-organize-first-integrated-prom

> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

.
.> I wonder if whites are welcome at the black prom...

Why don't you just make up a position for them? It's what you do when you can't directly address a statement or a question. Look at the position you make up for me in your tag line. You are truly a queer duck.

.
.> -------

[risky biz]

In this case, you're right. It's specifically a mixed-race event.

> > In any case, this article is about a prom that is not sponsored by the
> > school. It's a private event.
>
> Separate issue - but this is nonsense - there are signs all over the
> school, school committees are helping to organize it, it's covered in the
> school yearbook, elections for king and queen occur on school grounds
> during school hours. This is school sanctioned.

The article you cited says, "Wilcox County High School does not have an
official, school-sponsored prom, or even a stance on the issue." If you're
getting this contradictory information elsewhere, cite it.

> No one has any right to tell someone else
> > who they can invite to a private party.
> >
> > The students have the right idea in organizing a private non-racially
> > exclusive event. It seems from the article that a lot of the students of
> > all races support the idea. When students have to decide between one or
> > the other I think most of them will eventually reject the racially
> > exclusive event, even in south Georgia.
> >
> > The invitation list of the event they're discussing probably also is
> > selectively focused on upper-class whites, at least for that area.
> > >

[risky biz]

No it isn't. It's my way of asking you "what do you want anyone to do
about it?" You didn't specify in your OP that you were requesting everyone
to display an emotional, anti-racist outburst. You asked who wanted to
defend "separate but equal" which is not the issue here. It's a private
activity.

[risky biz]

You seem to find most intelligent comments amusing but you never seem to
have enough intelligence to understand them.

[fffurken]

I think you might be one of those people whose eh, intelligent comment
could quite easily be misunderstood.

For example, I know I missed your point recently about Canada being a
more racist country than America because there are more blacks in
America. I'll be honest, it didn't occur to me that you were talking
about an immigration policy. And it really didn't occur to me that a
large part of the reason for America having the black population it
does, slavery, was something you would want to bring up in a
discussion about racism.

Yep, you're a strange one risky. I really should come up with a name
for RGPers like you whose point can be missed because it makes fuck
all sense. So far I've got "Susan Syndrome".

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 8 2013 3:56 PM, risky biz wrote:

> The article you cited says, "Wilcox County High School does not have an
> official, school-sponsored prom, or even a stance on the issue."

Yes, it said that BS copout. It also talked about yearbook coverage and
elections and signs on the walls at the school. The idea the high school
doesn't "have a stance" is absurd on its face. Its stance is that it is
perfectly ok with the status quo.

The mere fact it hasn't tried advance to the 1960s and officially sponsor
an integrated prom speaks volumes.

[O-PGManager]

The 15 year olds have the right idea. Unfortunately none of the adults
do. Like RGP's denizens, they're probably too busy defending the legality
of the situation. (which isn't being challenged)

> You didn't specify in your OP that you were requesting everyone
> to display an emotional, anti-racist outburst.

Nope, didn't make a request. Just the opposite - I wanted to see who
would be bothered by this.... it appears very few are.

> You asked who wanted to
> defend "separate but equal" which is not the issue here. It's a private
> activity.

Separate but equal applied to all kinds of private activity. Again,
separate issue - but I have a very hard time seeing how this prom falls
under the narrow definition of a "private club" which is needed to
legalize racial discrimination.

But seriously - is that hard for you people to say "wow, that is pretty
fucked up and embarrassing to our country" before jumping into your
legalistic defenses?

>
> > > What is this supposed to be- an altar call against racism? That kind of
> > > puts off people who might agree with you otherwise. Another issu is that
I
> > > doubt very much that this event was billed anywhere as being open only to
> > > whites. It's probably attended by invitation only and all the invitees
are
> > > white. That isn't quite the same thing as declaring it "white only'. It's
> > > a more devious racism. Kind of like Canada's immigration policies.
> >
> >
> > Opie G. Manager
> > Rec.Gambling.Poker
> > Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

[BillB]

The immigration policy thing was something he dreamed up on the spot
after I demolished his "you are racist against whatever race doesn't
live there argument."

His immigration theory was also easy to demolish, because a very large
number of blacks have the education credentials to come to be admitted
to Canada to live and work on a basically automatic basis under NAFTA.
The numbers show they aren't moving here. There are reasons, which I
could get into, but risky obviously has no clue what they are, so he
blathers out his ass. I'm really getting sick of it.

[Truthseeker]

It's an excellent illustration of a fundamental difference between
government and private enterprise. Two shops providing the same service
in nearly identical locations. One run by the government, paying no
rent and still losing money. A LOT of money. The other a private
business, paying rent, having lower prices, and running a profit.

[halfpastdead]

On Apr 8 2013 11:44 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> and defend "separate but equal" - still going strong in 2013!
>

> --------------
> In a world full of color, Wilcox County High School still sees things in
> black and white. White and black students have different prom and
> homecoming dances.
>
> "There's a white prom and then we have our integrated prom," said
> Bloodworth.
>
> If any race other than Caucasian tries to attend the white prom,
> Bloodworth said they "would probably have the police come out there and
> escort them off the premises."
>
> That was the case just last year as a biracial student was turned away by
> police.
>
> It's been that way for as long as anyone can remember, and it doesn't stop
> at prom - homecoming is also segregated.
>
> ----------------------
>
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/21866345/georgia-high-school-students-organize-first-integrated-prom

> Opie G. Manager
> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

and do you get a free drink if you wear the confederate flag ?

no racism in the South


*****************************************

I saw a bumper sticker about six months ago. It said: "Don't Mex with
Tejas".

---------------------------------------------------------------

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 8 2013 2:28 PM, fffurken wrote:

> I think you might be one of those people whose eh, intelligent comment
> could quite easily be misunderstood.
>
> For example, I know I missed your point recently about Canada being a
> more racist country than America because there are more blacks in
> America. I'll be honest, it didn't occur to me that you were talking
> about an immigration policy. And it really didn't occur to me that a
> large part of the reason for America having the black population it
> does, slavery, was something you would want to bring up in a
> discussion about racism.
>
> Yep, you're a strange one risky. I really should come up with a name
> for RGPers like you whose point can be missed because it makes fuck
> all sense. So far I've got "Susan Syndrome".

there's only one idiot on the ng who looked a picture of white people and
concluded they hated blacks. yes, that idiot lives in a city that's ~1%
black. next a clown from dublin will be lecturing americans on black
tolerance!

mo_ntresor

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 8 2013 2:28 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> But seriously - is that hard for you people to say "wow, that is pretty
> fucked up and embarrassing to our country" before jumping into your
> legalistic defenses?

letting kkk idiots march, letting morons have segregated proms is a CREDIT
to our nation. you mistake limited happenings in a massive, diverse
nation with approval and / or pervasiveness. you're either illogical or
ignorant (or both).

mo_ntresor

[brattt]

I wonder if fffffffffff has visited the Statue of Liberty like B-BillB.

[fffurken]

On Apr 8, 9:56 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's much more along the lines of what I thought risky was talking
about.

"We got a nigger problem you don't understand!"

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 8 2013 3:17 PM, fffurken wrote:

> > there's only one idiot on the ng who looked a picture of white people and
> > concluded they hated blacks. �yes, that idiot lives in a city that's ~1%
> > black. �next a clown from dublin will be lecturing americans on black
> > tolerance!
>
> That's much more along the lines of what I thought risky was talking
> about.
>
> "We got a nigger problem you don't understand!"

you're an untrustworthy deadbeat, but i'll offer a deal anyway: i won't
lecture you on pissing myself drunk if you won't lecture me on american
"problems". you know the first, and i know the latter; let's stick with
what we know.

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

On Apr 8, 11:00 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You're also better at ad hominem than me.

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 8 2013 4:53 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 2:28 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > But seriously - is that hard for you people to say "wow, that is pretty
> > fucked up and embarrassing to our country" before jumping into your
> > legalistic defenses?
>
> letting kkk idiots march, letting morons have segregated proms is a CREDIT
> to our nation.

Simple question, were 'white only' diners a credit to our nation?

[Clave]

"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:scsb3ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

> On Apr 8 2013 4:53 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
>> On Apr 8 2013 2:28 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>>
>> > But seriously - is that hard for you people to say "wow, that is pretty
>> > fucked up and embarrassing to our country" before jumping into your
>> > legalistic defenses?
>>
>> letting kkk idiots march, letting morons have segregated proms is a
>> CREDIT
>> to our nation.
>
> Simple question, were 'white only' diners a credit to our nation?

YES! BECUASE STATE'S RIGHTS!!!

Jim

[risky biz]

On Apr 8 2013 1:32 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 3:56 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > The article you cited says, "Wilcox County High School does not have an
> > official, school-sponsored prom, or even a stance on the issue."
>
> Yes, it said that BS copout. It also talked about yearbook coverage and
> elections and signs on the walls at the school.

No. It didn't say anything about anyone (public or private) promoting the
supposedly whites only prom inside the school or in the yearbook.

> The idea the high school
> doesn't "have a stance" is absurd on its face. Its stance is that it is
> perfectly ok with the status quo.
>
> The mere fact it hasn't tried advance to the 1960s and officially sponsor
> an integrated prom speaks volumes.

No. The article says that it did: "The students said the school offered a
resolution to permit an integrated prom for all students to attend, but
not stop the segregated, private dances." The second part of the sentence
is ridiculous. The school is supposed to stop a private party? This isn't
North Korea.

[risky biz]

On Apr 8 2013 1:28 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> Nope, didn't make a request. Just the opposite - I wanted to see who
> would be bothered by this.... it appears very few are.
>
> > You asked who wanted to
> > defend "separate but equal" which is not the issue here. It's a private
> > activity.
>
> Separate but equal applied to all kinds of private activity. Again,
> separate issue - but I have a very hard time seeing how this prom falls
> under the narrow definition of a "private club" which is needed to
> legalize racial discrimination.

"Separate but equal" was a legal doctrine related to public facilities and
activities not private activities and facilities.

> But seriously - is that hard for you people to say "wow, that is pretty
> fucked up and embarrassing to our country" before jumping into your
> legalistic defenses?

Let me know when it's a public facility or activity and I'll let you know
how I feel.

If whatever private group is putting this on is specifically saying that
blacks are excluded I would have negative feelings about it but also
consider it their right to do so. However, the article is unconvincing
that this is actually happening.

If the school is actually assisting in promoting an activity that excludes
blacks then I would have a big problem with it. In my opinion, so would a
lot of other people here that you and BillB are saying wouldn't.

Overall, I think it's a sloppy article that's short on background facts.

[risky biz]

Pure deduction, Watson. If you have contradictory evidence present it.

[risky biz]

Put all the 'white's only' diners you can find on a list and you'll have
the answer to your question.

[Bill Vanek]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:56:37 -0700 (PDT), VegasJerry <jer...@cox.net>
wrote:

> You are truly a queer duck.

WTF? Is this some sort of gay-bashing?

[O-PGManager]

Are you denying they weren't rampant before the CRA?

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 8 2013 7:51 PM, risky biz wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 1:32 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8 2013 3:56 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > The article you cited says, "Wilcox County High School does not have an
> > > official, school-sponsored prom, or even a stance on the issue."
> >
> > Yes, it said that BS copout. It also talked about yearbook coverage and
> > elections and signs on the walls at the school.
>
> No. It didn't say anything about anyone (public or private) promoting the
> supposedly whites only prom inside the school or in the yearbook.

It talked about the coverage of prom kings/queens in the yearbook. You
really think all mention of prom is scrubbed in the yearbooks? Are you
just making up facts for yourself as you go?

>
> > The idea the high school
> > doesn't "have a stance" is absurd on its face. Its stance is that it is
> > perfectly ok with the status quo.
> >
> > The mere fact it hasn't tried advance to the 1960s and officially sponsor
> > an integrated prom speaks volumes.
>
> No. The article says that it did: "The students said the school offered a
> resolution to permit an integrated prom for all students to attend, but
> not stop the segregated, private dances."

Offered a resolution to permit an integrated prom? What the hell does
that even mean? They would have no standing not to permit such a thing.

The point is, they took no steps to sponsor it and make it happen.
Probably because they all think it's fine and dandy, like most of the
people on this sad newsgroup.

[O-PGManager]

It's a stupid deduction... here is the contradictory evidence: it makes no
sense. I'll cut you some slack since I'm guessing you haven't been to a
high school prom in a while.

You don't announce your date to prom ahead of time. You can show up with
anyone. For your imagined "invite only" system to be in place... everyone
would have to pre-declare their dates, all of these dates (many from out
of town and who the organizers don't know) would have to be some how
racially pre-screened before invites went out. This ridiculous two step
process that doesn't happen anywhere in the country is not happening here.

They have a simple system - darkies get turned away at the door.

[risky biz]

On Apr 8 2013 8:57 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 7:51 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8 2013 1:32 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 8 2013 3:56 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > >
> > > > The article you cited says, "Wilcox County High School does not have an
> > > > official, school-sponsored prom, or even a stance on the issue."
> > >
> > > Yes, it said that BS copout. It also talked about yearbook coverage and
> > > elections and signs on the walls at the school.
> >
> > No. It didn't say anything about anyone (public or private) promoting the
> > supposedly whites only prom inside the school or in the yearbook.
>
> It talked about the coverage of prom kings/queens in the yearbook. You
> really think all mention of prom is scrubbed in the yearbooks? Are you
> just making up facts for yourself as you go?

As a matter of fact I read the article. A black girl was selected as the
prom queen and her picture was in the yearbook. Do you think the so-called
whites-only prom selected her? How does that promote a whites-only prom?
Make some sense.

> > > The idea the high school
> > > doesn't "have a stance" is absurd on its face. Its stance is that it is
> > > perfectly ok with the status quo.
> > >
> > > The mere fact it hasn't tried advance to the 1960s and officially sponsor
> > > an integrated prom speaks volumes.
> >
> > No. The article says that it did: "The students said the school offered a
> > resolution to permit an integrated prom for all students to attend, but
> > not stop the segregated, private dances."
>
> Offered a resolution to permit an integrated prom? What the hell does
> that even mean? They would have no standing not to permit such a thing.

This school can't win as far as you're concerned. You condemn them if they
do or don't want a non-rsacial prom. A prom is not an integral part of a
school's curriculum. There is no requirement that a school sponsor a prom.
On the other hand you expect the school to somehow shut down this other
prom. Why do you think the school has standing to shut down a private
party? The stupid article doesn't even mention where the prom was held. I
suspect they didn't mention it because it didn't involve any use of school
property.

> The point is, they took no steps to sponsor it and make it happen.
> Probably because they all think it's fine and dandy, like most of the
> people on this sad newsgroup.

That's a completely unsupported assumption. If they offered a resolution
for a non-racially exclusive prom they were pro-active and they were
sponsoring it. You're basing extensive assumptions on what is not only a
poorly written article but one that appears to be trying to present a
false picture of the actual facts by leaving out so much background
information.

[risky biz]

Why would you ask if I was? Does the fact that there was a CRA tell you
anything about your question as to whether or not the US considered
whites-only diners a credit to our nation? I think the CRA was a credit to
our nation but going around demanding that people condemn something that
hasn't existed for half a century is silly. There are much worse things
that are actually going on right now that are deserving of the attention.

[risky biz]

Don't start with the name calling. You're basing very extensive
assumptions on what is already an obviously crappy article. I'm trying to
guess what actually took place because the article makes no attempt to
inform with actual facts. It's more like an opinion piece that's light on
facts. That, in itself, leads me to believe they are trying to present it
in a way that makes it seem like something it isn't.

[BillB]

On 08/04/2013 11:41 PM, risky biz wrote:

>I'm trying to
> guess what actually took place because the article makes no attempt to
> inform with actual facts.

Redundant. All facts are actual.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:57:22 -0700, "O-PGManager"
<ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>> I wonder if whites are welcome at the black prom...
>
>I was just about to pre-empt this comment, thinking that PICKLE would
>idiotically not read the article and jump to the wrong conclusion... and
>make some kind of "well the black people are just as racist" comment.
>
>Read the article... the black prom is INTEGRATED... anyone is free to
>come... the other prom is whites only and enforced by police with guns.
>
>You beat Pickle of all people, to the idiot punch, you should hang your
>head in shame Dave.

Pickle is going to pretend that the big issue here is how they'll
determine who is allowed to attend the whites-only prom.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:52:50 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:

>
>It's an excellent illustration of a fundamental difference between
>government and private enterprise. Two shops providing the same service
>in nearly identical locations. One run by the government, paying no
>rent and still losing money. A LOT of money. The other a private
>business, paying rent, having lower prices, and running a profit.

The government shop is not in business to make money. You're
pointing that an entity that's not in business to make money isn't
making money, while one that is in business to make money is making
money. This isn't particularly enlightening.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:09:21 -0700, "brewmaster"
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>Private clubs can make all their own rules they want. They can allow
>smoking in a public place, they can keep out women, they can keep out
>blacks, they can keep out whites, it isn't up to you.

Yes, they can, and no, it isn't. He does, however, have the freedom
and the right to point out that the private club is a racist
organization.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

That's pretty much all he's good at if he can even be considered good
at it.
--

Pepe Papon

[da pickle]

Jerry uses words in many ways.

[Tom White]

On 2013-04-09, risky biz <a31...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> Put all the 'white's only' diners you can find on a list and you'll have
> the answer to your question.

If I ever go into the food service business, I'll open a single
restaurant and name it "White's Only Diner".

[risky biz]

That's pretty good. Three credits.

[da pickle]

10/10

[risky biz]

Taken as an ensemble they aren't when in their flawed concatenation they
promote only half a truth which is actually a lie. But I don't expect you
to even understand that sentence so no demerits. You have much more
pressing personal issues to deal with, anyway.

[O-PGManager]

Ok Tom that's not bad.

[O-PGManager]

I didn't ask whether or not "the US" (or you) considered whites only
diners a credit to our nation. I asked if that was what Mo thought. He
said segregated proms were a credit to our nation, so it only follows that
a return to Jim Crowe and segregated diners would be as well? Do you
disagree with where Mo's logic takes him?

I think the CRA was a credit to
> our nation but going around demanding that people condemn something that
> hasn't existed for half a century is silly. There are much worse things
> that are actually going on right now that are deserving of the attention.

[O-PGManager]

The only "facts" missing are the imaginary ones you've invented (invite
only proms) that would somehow make this appalling situation look a little
less bad on its face.

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 9 2013 2:25 AM, risky biz wrote:

> On Apr 8 2013 8:57 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8 2013 7:51 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 8 2013 1:32 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Apr 8 2013 3:56 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The article you cited says, "Wilcox County High School does not have
an
> > > > > official, school-sponsored prom, or even a stance on the issue."
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it said that BS copout. It also talked about yearbook coverage
and
> > > > elections and signs on the walls at the school.
> > >
> > > No. It didn't say anything about anyone (public or private) promoting the
> > > supposedly whites only prom inside the school or in the yearbook.
> >
> > It talked about the coverage of prom kings/queens in the yearbook. You
> > really think all mention of prom is scrubbed in the yearbooks? Are you
> > just making up facts for yourself as you go?
>
> As a matter of fact I read the article. A black girl was selected as the
> prom queen and her picture was in the yearbook. Do you think the so-called
> whites-only prom selected her? How does that promote a whites-only prom?
> Make some sense.

Coverage and acknowledgement is tacit approval. This isn't complicated.

> On the other hand you expect the school to somehow shut down this other
> prom. Why do you think the school has standing to shut down a private
> party?

They don't. They can sponsor (organize, promote, execute) an alternative.
My high school sponsored an alternative alcohol free after prom party in
response to something they didn't like. If this school was bothered by a
whites only prom - they would sponsor an alternative.

> > The point is, they took no steps to sponsor it and make it happen.
> > Probably because they all think it's fine and dandy, like most of the
> > people on this sad newsgroup.
>
> That's a completely unsupported assumption. If they offered a resolution
> for a non-racially exclusive prom they were pro-active and they were
> sponsoring it. You're basing extensive assumptions on what is not only a
> poorly written article but one that appears to be trying to present a
> false picture of the actual facts by leaving out so much background
> information.

How can you possibly know "so much background information" has been left
out? You don't work there. You're just making shit up... "invite only
prom" - lol.

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 9 2013 11:32 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> I didn't ask whether or not "the US" (or you) considered whites only
> diners a credit to our nation. I asked if that was what Mo thought. He
> said segregated proms were a credit to our nation, so it only follows that
> a return to Jim Crowe and segregated diners would be as well? Do you
> disagree with where Mo's logic takes him?

i didn't say segregated proms were a credit to the nation; i said
ALLOWING people to do a say stupid shit we rightly disagree with is a
credit to the nation. you're just another illogical idiot.

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

On 09/04/2013 10:34 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> The only "facts" missing are the imaginary ones you've invented (invite
> only proms) that would somehow make this appalling situation look a little
> less bad on its face.

The most appalling thing of all is that these are kids who have been
TRAINED to be racists, obviously from an early age, and even when they
became young adults and the more mature and intelligent among them
rebelled against these disgusting racist traditions and policies, the
authority figures (be it teachers, parents, administrators, or, most
likely, all of them) struggled to maintain the racist status quo. It's sick.

[risky biz]

On Apr 9 2013 10:40 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Apr 9 2013 2:25 AM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8 2013 8:57 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 8 2013 7:51 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Apr 8 2013 1:32 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Apr 8 2013 3:56 PM, risky biz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The article you cited says, "Wilcox County High School does not
have
> an
> > > > > > official, school-sponsored prom, or even a stance on the issue."
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it said that BS copout. It also talked about yearbook coverage
> and
> > > > > elections and signs on the walls at the school.
> > > >
> > > > No. It didn't say anything about anyone (public or private) promoting
the
> > > > supposedly whites only prom inside the school or in the yearbook.
> > >
> > > It talked about the coverage of prom kings/queens in the yearbook. You
> > > really think all mention of prom is scrubbed in the yearbooks? Are you
> > > just making up facts for yourself as you go?
> >
> > As a matter of fact I read the article. A black girl was selected as the
> > prom queen and her picture was in the yearbook. Do you think the so-called
> > whites-only prom selected her? How does that promote a whites-only prom?
> > Make some sense.
>
> Coverage and acknowledgement is tacit approval. This isn't complicated.

Your stupid article doesn't explain how a white boy was selected king and
a black girl was selected queen. Were they both elected by student voting
by all the students? Was one election held for black queen and another for
white king? Start answering some simple questions yourself if you claim to
know everything about it. The pictures in the yearbook are meaningless
without that BASIC information.

> > On the other hand you expect the school to somehow shut down this other
> > prom. Why do you think the school has standing to shut down a private
> > party?
>
> They don't. They can sponsor (organize, promote, execute) an alternative.

That's what they want to do. But you insist they "take steps to sponsor it
and make it happen". Maybe you should offer to help pay for it. Do you
feel you have standing to refuse to help pay for it if it's such a big
concern of yours? If you do have standing to decline why doesn't the
school? Can't they decide what they can afford and what they can't?

And the bottom line is still that the article says absolutely nothing
about whether they took additional steps or not. All it says is that the
school didn't stop the private event which is a stupid statement. You the
leapt to the following conclusion: "Probably because they all think it's
fine and dandy, like most of the people on this sad newsgroup." What is
this other than pure invention? Maybe they can't afford a school sponsored
prom. Did you ever consider that?

[risky biz]

OK, Opie. They advertised a "whites only" prom. Because you say so.

[risky biz]

I'm not the one making things up, you are. I've already said more than
once that the article is factually deprived and I've speculated what the
true case may be and made it clear that it was a deduction because of the
nearly complete lack of background information in the article. On the
other hand, you are stating that certain things are facts without a shred
of evidence. You even said that "separate but equal" applied to private
events and facilities which is the opposite of the truth.

[risky biz]

You don't have the slightest knowledge of what is actually happening there
and you're an imbecile.

[Truthseeker]

Both shops are there to provide services that the Congressmen find
convenient. Both use space in the buildings, both have employees, both
provide services and both charge for those services (the Senate
government-run one charges more). Only the House shop pays rent for
their space, the Senate one already has that as a subsidy. There is no
reason that the Senate shop should run a deficit and need taxpayer
subsidies -- but government-run enterprises, whether they be the Post
Office, passenger trains, or barbershops tend to do that. It all goes
to efficiency and the lack of it. Which is why when some function or
service can be provided by either private free enterprise or by a
government, we are nearly always better off having it provided by
private enterprise.


--
Truthseeker

"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."

[da pickle]

If he cannot see the "difference" when two barbershops are operating
side by side ... there is no hope for America.

[O-PGManager]

So repealing the Civil Rights Act, to go back to a time when people were
free to do stupid shit like have 'whites only' diners, would be a credit
to our nation?


>
> mo_ntresor

[O-PGManager]

What needs explaining? I'm sure it was done the same way it is done in
every high school in America. All the nominees were on a ballot.
Students got a ballot and voted. What are you missing here?

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 10 2013 12:30 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Apr 9 2013 1:38 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9 2013 11:32 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't ask whether or not "the US" (or you) considered whites only
> > > diners a credit to our nation. I asked if that was what Mo thought. He
> > > said segregated proms were a credit to our nation, so it only follows
that
> > > a return to Jim Crowe and segregated diners would be as well? Do you
> > > disagree with where Mo's logic takes him?
> >
> > i didn't say segregated proms were a credit to the nation; i said
> > ALLOWING people to do a say stupid shit we rightly disagree with is a
> > credit to the nation. you're just another illogical idiot.
>
> So repealing the Civil Rights Act, to go back to a time when people were
> free to do stupid shit like have 'whites only' diners, would be a credit
> to our nation?

the civil rights act addressed PUBLIC inequity, not PRIVATE. pull your
head out of your idiot ass.

mo_ntresor

[BillB]

The black homecoming queen wasn't allowed to come to the white prom.

[brattt]

On Apr 10 2013 1:30 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Apr 9 2013 1:38 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9 2013 11:32 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > I didn't ask whether or not "the US" (or you) considered whites only
> > > diners a credit to our nation. I asked if that was what Mo thought. He
> > > said segregated proms were a credit to our nation, so it only follows
that
> > > a return to Jim Crowe and segregated diners would be as well? Do you
> > > disagree with where Mo's logic takes him?
> >
> > i didn't say segregated proms were a credit to the nation; i said
> > ALLOWING people to do a say stupid shit we rightly disagree with is a
> > credit to the nation. you're just another illogical idiot.
>
> So repealing the Civil Rights Act, to go back to a time when people were
> free to do stupid shit like have 'whites only' diners, would be a credit
> to our nation?

What are your thoughts on the Westboro Church?

I don't think they are in any way shape or form a *credit* to our nation,
but the Constitution protects them - which is a *credit* to our nation.



---------------------------------------------------------
In context quotes

On Mar 20 2013 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Try checking out North Dakota's new law. Women can't even get birth
control pulls.

Jerry wrote on: /Dec 18 2012
I'm willing to allow police to be the only people allowed to be armed, and
to give them the power to stop and search anybody at any time, and to get
warrants to search any home. I want the penalty of owning or carrying a
weapon to be life in prison. And I don't want any further discussion on
that. The time has come.

[BillB]

On 10/04/2013 11:47 AM, BillB wrote

> The black homecoming queen wasn't allowed to come to the white prom.

And if that alone doesn't make them realize we're dealing with a sick,
fucked up, racist culture, then THEY'RE the racists (or mentally
handicapped or both).

[risky biz]

Then you're sure about way too much. If there are two separate proms there
could be two separate elections and the article seems to indicate that
there used to be two seaparate kings and queens. The article sucks and
you're jumping to conclusions in addition to that.

I've definitely lost interest in this. Get back to me if you can ever
figure out where the "white" prom is held or have the slightest bit of
information about whether the white prom is open to anyone who is white
but only white and if they have ever invited a black student if it's by
invitation and . . . well, when you have some facts. Don't look for them
in the stupid article. That would be a waste of time.

[O-PGManager]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24prom-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Plenty more info here. I have no idea why you are having such a hard time
wrapping your head around the situation. Mo's trying to deny it's a
problem (it's actually a credit to the nation), while you're trying to
deny it exists at all.

[BillB]

On 10/04/2013 7:58 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

>I have no idea why you are having such a hard time
> wrapping your head around the situation.

Really??

[Pepe Papon]

OTOH, it appears that there were enough non-racists in the school to
elect a black homecoming queen.
--

Pepe Papon

[Pepe Papon]

It's hardly that a profit-making enterprise is geared towards making a
profit, and would be better at profit-making than an entity not trying
to earn a profit.
--

Pepe Papon

[da pickle]

Jesus Christ ... you are a fool. [The point that you missed is a
thousand exits to your rear.]

[risky biz]

On Apr 10 2013 7:58 PM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Apr 10 2013 5:46 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10 2013 11:28 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 9 2013 4:35 PM, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > > Your stupid article doesn't explain how a white boy was selected king
and
> > > > a black girl was selected queen.
> > >
> > > What needs explaining? I'm sure it was done the same way it is done in
> > > every high school in America. All the nominees were on a ballot.
> > > Students got a ballot and voted. What are you missing here?
> >
> > Then you're sure about way too much. If there are two separate proms there
> > could be two separate elections and the article seems to indicate that
> > there used to be two seaparate kings and queens. The article sucks and
> > you're jumping to conclusions in addition to that.
> >
> > I've definitely lost interest in this. Get back to me if you can ever
> > figure out where the "white" prom is held or have the slightest bit of
> > information about whether the white prom is open to anyone who is white
> > but only white and if they have ever invited a black student if it's by
> > invitation and . . . well, when you have some facts. Don't look for them
> > in the stupid article. That would be a waste of time.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24prom-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>
> Plenty more info here. I have no idea why you are having such a hard time
> wrapping your head around the situation.

Uhh . . . maybe it's because your "plenty more info" is about a different
high school, in a different town, from 4 years ago. Why don't you start a
new thread and we can discuss that article which at least tells us where
the prom(s) were held.

You do realize this article is not about the same prom as your first
article, don't you? I know BillB doesn't. His specialty is all mouth, no
facts.

[Truthseeker]

What's wrong with earning a profit? That's what makes the economy work.
The profit motive is the driver of innovation, efficiency and good
service. A business makes a profit by providing a product or service at
a price customers will pay -- they must entice a free people to pay them
for value received. Profits are what has generated the greatest
prosperity the world has ever seen.

Economies that have tried to operate without profits have been dismal
basket cases of shared poverty and a few rich oligarchs. Ref. Eastern
Europe during the Cold War.

[brattt]

On Apr 10 2013 1:44 PM, brattt wrote:

> On Apr 10 2013 1:30 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9 2013 1:38 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 9 2013 11:32 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > >
> > > > I didn't ask whether or not "the US" (or you) considered whites only
> > > > diners a credit to our nation. I asked if that was what Mo thought.
He
> > > > said segregated proms were a credit to our nation, so it only follows
> that
> > > > a return to Jim Crowe and segregated diners would be as well? Do you
> > > > disagree with where Mo's logic takes him?
> > >
> > > i didn't say segregated proms were a credit to the nation; i said
> > > ALLOWING people to do a say stupid shit we rightly disagree with is a
> > > credit to the nation. you're just another illogical idiot.
> >
> > So repealing the Civil Rights Act, to go back to a time when people were
> > free to do stupid shit like have 'whites only' diners, would be a credit
> > to our nation?
>
>
> What are your thoughts on the Westboro Church?
>
> I don't think they are in any way shape or form a *credit* to our nation,
> but the Constitution protects them - which is a *credit* to our nation.

No takers? opie?

[Pepe Papon]

Thanks for the lecture, but where did I say anything even remotely
suggesting that it's not OK to earn a profit?
--

Pepe Papon

[da pickle]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Pepe Papon]

Translation: " I am really, really stupid. I'm also a crap flooding
anklebiter who needs to have the last word."
--

Pepe Papon

[O-PGManager]

On Apr 10 2013 2:44 PM, brattt wrote:

> On Apr 10 2013 1:30 PM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > On Apr 9 2013 1:38 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 9 2013 11:32 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
> > >
> > > > I didn't ask whether or not "the US" (or you) considered whites only
> > > > diners a credit to our nation. I asked if that was what Mo thought.
He
> > > > said segregated proms were a credit to our nation, so it only follows
> that
> > > > a return to Jim Crowe and segregated diners would be as well? Do you
> > > > disagree with where Mo's logic takes him?
> > >
> > > i didn't say segregated proms were a credit to the nation; i said
> > > ALLOWING people to do a say stupid shit we rightly disagree with is a
> > > credit to the nation. you're just another illogical idiot.
> >
> > So repealing the Civil Rights Act, to go back to a time when people were
> > free to do stupid shit like have 'whites only' diners, would be a credit
> > to our nation?
>
>
> What are your thoughts on the Westboro Church?
>
> I don't think they are in any way shape or form a *credit* to our nation,
> but the Constitution protects them - which is a *credit* to our nation.

I agree. Protecting free speech rights is important. Protecting a
restaurant's right to call the police to remove black customers.... not
the same thing.

>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> In context quotes
>
> On Mar 20 2013 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Try checking out North Dakota's new law. Women can't even get birth
> control pulls.
>
> Jerry wrote on: /Dec 18 2012
> I'm willing to allow police to be the only people allowed to be armed, and
> to give them the power to stop and search anybody at any time, and to get
> warrants to search any home. I want the penalty of owning or carrying a
> weapon to be life in prison. And I don't want any further discussion on
> that. The time has come.

[O-PGManager]

I know, it's another example of the widespread phenomenon of segregated
proms in Alabama. You were having such a terrible time getting your head
wrapped around what they entailed, I thought maybe that would help.