Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LORAL -- Political Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dragonfly who wrote (311)	5/28/1998 10:47:00 PM
From: Dragonfly	Respond to of 880

I'm "absolutely wrong", huh? It sure is easy to prove I'm right: From: nunic.nu.edu Disfranchisement was accomplished in various ways: a poll tax, a white primary, a literacy test, or property qualifications. The literacy test and property qualification were the two most common methods. Because many lower-class whites were illiterate, loopholes had to be created through the "grandfather clause" or the "understanding clause." The "grandfather clause" stated that if a person's grandfather had the right to vote in 1860, the person was exempt from literacy or property qualifications. In the 1890s, the only people who had grandparents eligible to vote in 1860 were whites. The "understanding clause" stated that if an illiterate person could explain the meaning of a portion of the constitution when it was read to him, he could vote. At the same time that blacks were being disfranchised, they were also being segregated. In 1890 Louisiana took the lead, passing a law that segregated railroad cars, the first of many such pieces of legislation that became known as "Jim Crow" laws. The Louisiana law was upheld by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which declared that the 14th Amendment was not violated by "separate but equal" accommodations. "The object of the amendment," continued the Court, "was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. . . . We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act [law], but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it." By 1920, most blacks in the South had lost the right to vote and were segregated from the white community. Just like Zolt wants to segregate those who think too freely from voting. Dragonfly

To: Dragonfly who wrote (311)	5/28/1998 10:47:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 880

Hey Dolt, I said a literacy test was not a poll tax. NOTHING you have spewed has altered that fact. You have merely proven that you are too stupid to understand the distinction so you compound your error by repetition. Are you really a Junior High School graduate? I'm sure you are asked that often by the incredulous.