Almalieque wrote:
Voter IDs did not gut the VRA. That makes absolutely no sense and only a person who has no clue what is going on would even think that. Sections of the VRA were REMOVED that allowed voter ID laws to occur. That indeed is gutting the law. It was the Republicans who requested that those provisions be removed.
They weren't removed. They were ruled unconstitutional. That's an entirely different thing. And those provisions were removed precisely because they were the basis for blocking voter ID in several states. Despite the ridiculous rhetoric claiming that section 4 of the VRA was somehow the "heart of the act", I'd argue that the parts that prohibit voting tests and race based discrimination are much more important. Section 4 was always intended to be temporary and adjusted over time as conditions changed, but not one ever bothered to do so. This resulted in unfair restrictions on just some states based on conditions that hadn't been re-evaluated for over 40 years.
The relevance to voter ID was that every state was allowed to implement it as they wished *except* for a small list for which special restrictions were applied. That list was never modified and never updated. That's why it was struck down. Yes. I'm well aware of the issues involving the law, but when you simplify it down to "the GOP gutted the VRA" it shows me that you're acting more on emotion driven rhetoric than any actual assessment of the event in question.
Quote:
How is "And, yes, it does include private schools" not answering your question that includes private schools? You're very confused because I said PUBLIC SERVICES, such as schools. Schools was an example, hence the "such as". The topic of concern was privatizing PUBLIC SERVICES.
Which does not include private schools. So when you say you're opposed to privatizing public services, bu then say "that includes private schools", I have an issue because private schools are not schools that used to be public, but have since been privatized. I'm "confused" because you keep insisting you're talking about one thing, but then also insisting that it includes something that is entirely different. It's like saying "I'm don't like raw food, such as fruit", and I ask if this includes applies and pears, and you say "Yes, it includes steak". Um... what?
Quote:
Is Charter school an example of privatizing public services? Yes. Ok, then.
Sure. Which is why I asked for clarification that you were talking about charter schools, and why I questioned why you say that black people oppose them. But instead of answering my question, you went off on a tangent about actual private schools.
Quote:
I'm not understanding how this is so hard for you to understand. Historically it included private schools, because it provided another avenue of segregation, but not so much now.
What's hard for me to understand is why you keep introducing new elements to the conversation that have no relevance. I'm asking you
why black people oppose charter schools. That's the question. And your answer was "we also dislike private schools because of segregation". Can you see how that doesn't in any way answer the question?
You keep doing this. You make a statement. I respond to that statement, often including a question or challenge to what you said, complete with an argument of my own but being very specific to the exact thing you just said. You respond to me by ignoring what I said and changing the subject to something else. It's strange. Do you actually think this is how conversation works? So you say that you think it's going to rain, I say that it probably wont and include some meteorological reasons why, and you respond by saying that "I like fish". Um... What?
Quote:
They are against any public service that is privatized that causes the less fortunate to pay more in order to get what is expected to be the standard.
Except that charter schools don't cost money to attend. Again, this is why I'm having problems with what you're saying. You're blending the aspects of two completely different things. If you're talking about actual private schools, those cost money and can therefore be priced out of reach of some people. However, they are not examples of public services that were privatized. Charter schools, on the other hand can be said to be a public service that has been privatized, but they do not charge tuition to attend.
So when you say that it's the privatization of public services you have a problem with, but your reason why is because they charge tuition, it makes me assume you have no freaking clue what you are talking about.
Want to try again? Why do you think that black people oppose charter schools? I don't want to hear about private schools. I don't want to hear about tuition. I want you to explain what it is about charter schools that you think black people should oppose as a group. Can you do that? Sheesh!
I'm not even going to respond to the second part of your post because it's just another example of you dredging up something I said 3 pages ago so as to change the subject (again). WTF? Nothing you're talking about matters in this context. You may as well just write random characters on the screen, it would have just as much relevance to what I'm writing.
Again. My argument is that welfare perpetuates poverty among those who are already poor. I further argue that since most of our welfare system was instituted at a time when blacks were disproportionately poor, welfare has had the effect of keeping blacks disproportionately poor. I further argue that since poor neighborhoods tend to also be high crime neighborhoods, this also creates a disproportionately high crime and victimization rate among blacks (including negative interactions with police). I further argue that a whole list of social ills can also be connected to this same disproportionate poverty rate.
I therefore question the logic of black people continuing to vote for and support the political party that continues to fight to maintain and even expand welfare programs. I believe that if you really want to improve the condition of blacks in America, and eliminate the disproportionate rates of events like Ferguson, or any of the large list of symptoms of that poverty discrepancy that you have mentioned in this thread, you'd be better off fighting to end the welfare state. What baffles me is that there seems to be this tendency, which you exhibit as well, of just wanting to complain about the problems, but not wanting to actually fix them (or even discuss how to do so). You keep meandering from one complaint to the next, but I've yet to hear you propose anything remotely resembling a solution.
That's my argument. Do you agree, or disagree, and why? And if you disagree, then what do you think is the root problem, and what do you think we should do about it? Join another pity party? Because that's all I'm seeing you do.