Not just a Southern thing...

Because everyone knows that only racists live in the South, and the South is the only place that has any racists. Do try to keep up.
 
Let the bill die It's political PR at best.

SnP, you do know that you're the only one who believes the rest of the country hates the south?
 
Gonz said:
Let the bill die It's political PR at best.

SnP, you do know that you're the only one who believes the rest of the country hates the south?
Click to expand...

I know no such thing. I have beaucoup evidence to the contrary however. Your refusal to believe it means less than nothing to me or anyone else concerned.
 
Stereotypes...they exist for all sections of the country (you portray several of them yourself).
 
Yep, only a few well informed Appalachian Americans ever bother to make liberal California jokes or Blue Blood Boston jokes or Backwood Maine Yankee jokes or Texas Drawl jokes or...
 
Maybe, maybe not.

The numbers pale by comparison and we both know it.

I'm obviously making headway in my crusade. I've got you thinking about it. It's a start.
 
The maternal side of my family is very southern (saw them all this weekend , damned hillibillies). I've discussed the stereotypical southern image long before I knew you.

Mostly though, it's not just the south that's pointed out.
 
Gonz said:
Mostly though, it's not just the south that's pointed out.
Click to expand...

Kinda like saying that mostly, in a general sense, it's not just water that's wet.

As I said before, borrowing a line from our walking talking tax deduction...

Whatever you hafta tell yourself to sleep at night.
Click to expand...
 
Holy crap. I've been up, down, and across the south and I never realized they were all feeling sorry for themselves and repressed.

Now I know.
 
Gato_Solo said:
but correct all the same.

Two questions, though...why just an extension and why only mention the South?
Click to expand...
Can someone give me a brief synopsis of what this Act does in practise? in dumbed down English?

Cause as I understand it right now (not very much), I'm kinda shocked that it's not permanent.
 
Leslie said:
Can someone give me a brief synopsis of what this Act does in practise? in dumbed down English?

Cause as I understand it right now (not very much), I'm kinda shocked that it's not permanent.
Click to expand...

Back in the early-to-mid 20th century (after the 'civil' war), there were deliberate attempts to deny voting to the poor in general, and blacks in particular. While focused on the Southern states, these practices were also found in Ohio, New York, parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ilinois. Most of it had to deal with charging money to vote, while other blocks (literacy tests) were also employed. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, barring these practices, but a timeline was attached because the thought was that this would only have to be temporary...
 
spike said:
Holy crap. I've been up, down, and across the south and I never realized they were all feeling sorry for themselves and repressed.

Now I know.
Click to expand...
Please don't categorize us like that. I feel not repressed....I do, on occasion, feel sorry for myself but that is another matter.
 
Professur said:
No hope of getting a stay on that one, is there?
Click to expand...

If it's a standard literacy test, and everybody has to take it, then I wouldn't have any problem with it. The reason there was a problem then was because only certain people had to show literacy, while others did not...
 
Gato_Solo said:
If it's a standard literacy test, and everybody has to take it, then I wouldn't have any problem with it. The reason there was a problem then was because only certain people had to show literacy, while others did not...
Click to expand...

Well, 50 years ago, I could understand if they gave a pass to anyone with a highschool diploma. Today .......
 
Gato_Solo said:
Back in the early-to-mid 20th century (after the 'civil' war), there were deliberate attempts to deny voting to the poor in general, and blacks in particular. While focused on the Southern states, these practices were also found in Ohio, New York, parts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ilinois. Most of it had to deal with charging money to vote, while other blocks (literacy tests) were also employed. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, barring these practices, but a timeline was attached because the thought was that this would only have to be temporary...
Click to expand...
Ok. So it wasn't a specific "these people can't vote" then, just a targetted rule, enacted knowing it would have a desired effect.

So. Is there a fear that rules like that would ever be made again - is there even a point to the duration of the Act being extended at all? If yes, then as you said why only an extension? Why would this not be set in stone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top