To: dennisw
While I would agree, as a rhetorical point, if you say nice things about the 1950s, some people will jump up and down and shout "Jim Crow! Jim Crow! You want to bring back segregation -- don't you?!" It's ridiculous.
But I usually set my time machine back to the year of the Civil Rights Act (1964) so that no one can paint me as an apologist for blatant social prejudice.
32 posted on
04/29/2015 6:50:11 PM PDT by
ClearCase_guy
("Victim" -- some people eagerly take on the label because of the many advantages that come with it.)
To: ClearCase_guy
I agree. And that innocent enough 1964 Civil Right Act was only for blacks and Indians and was pledged to not involve quotas. All that has evolved into quotas/affirmative action and everyone including gays and trannys getting civil rights protections. That they then use to bash others over the head with
35 posted on
04/29/2015 6:58:25 PM PDT by
dennisw
(The first principle is to find out who you are then you can achieve anything -- Buddhist monk)
To: ClearCase_guy
Liberals want it both ways when THEY talk about the halcyon '50s, when every "workin' man" was in a union.
And fat cats paid 80-90% marginal tax rates.
Course they never mention all of the tax loopholes the "rich" used to get, so they'd sometimes pay little or no taxes.
37 posted on
04/29/2015 11:49:51 PM PDT by
boop
(Hey, stoop, that's got gears. It ain't no Ford.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson