twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
What you made up was a distraction.now tell me what i made up.
Civil rights is a very broad term.
Citing the opposition to the civil rights act of 1964
as defined by geographical boundary is pretty silly, given it was an obvious geographical issue to begin with, always was; no dispute there.
iirc we were discussing the party and the mindset of those that caused the oppression, leading to the Act, which of course you deviate from.
All I have ever said it that "its not a good idea" because the Constitution already provided everything to everyone of every color, sex, orientation ect. ect. already.....which is why slavery never stood a chance of continuing for long in this country.
Your stance is basiclly that, without all the legislation there would still be "whites only" fountains in the South, which is what makes you sound ignorant.