Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.
As always, you nail the numbskull racist
Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?
Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.
And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.
Lol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining ha
Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.
But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.
If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.
No one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lol
The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.
I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.
At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.
Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported
new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.
Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.