There is evidence. You claiming there is none does not mean there is none
First I have to make a correction. It is not Johnson's Great New Deal, but Johnson's Great Society.
In a court of law, evidence supports the idea that X exists or X has happened. If your intention is to show that systemic racism causes Black hardships, you would have to show evidence proving this. The hardship is the effect, not the evidence.
Your argument is similar to finding a dead body and claiming that Y killed the person based on the fact that the person is dead. The dead person is not evidenced that Y killed him, it is evidence that the person had died. And unlike my example, you don't have a Y to point to.
You are hard of hearing...
If you are referring to our correspondence, I use my visual ability to read not my auditory.
.people in the government agency use their position to discriminate...for example Judges giving longer prison terms to black people as opposed to white people for the same crimes...
Again ambiguous accusations. For argument's sake let's say there are discriminatory judges; are you able to make the leap from individuals practicing their racial worldview to following government policies?
So you are proving that the aim of the white man is to keep blacks in poverty.
Do you think that is a just statement? Let's break down this logic.
Premise 1 The Great Society was designed to trap Blacks in poverty.
Premise 2 Johnson promoted and singed the Great Society
Premise 3 Johnson is white
Conclusion: the aim of the white man is to keep blacks in poverty.
Similar to the racist propaganda of the KKK
Premise 1 A white woman was raped.
Premise 2 She was raped by a black man
Conclusion All white women were raped by black men.
The hardships caused by the GS were caused by Democrats not whites. Notice the hardships exist, and the Democratic party is multiracial. The Democratic Party is all about control. It is at the heart of their platform. They always speak of 'fairness' and 'equal results' =that is control. The Republicans speak of freedom, liberty, and equal opportunity. Minimum control.
That is rubbish, if a man decides to leave his home that is his personal affair.
A man is supposed to take care of his family.
I think you missed the point. It was written into the GS policy that the government would only support single-parent households. That was meant to trap by design.
Example for comparison. Suppose a neighboring family loses their jobs. Both the husband and wife are unemployed, out of cash, to be evicted, utilities turned off, have four children, etc. They ask me for help, and I intend to get them on their feet and running again. Which approach is righteous.
Help both husband and wife to get employment, help them keep as much of their assets as possible, keep the family together, and ensure that everything possible is there so the family is off my assistance as quick as possible with the least amount of loss. Or explain to the wife that I only support verifiable single-parent households that are destitute and any indication that the father or a male figure lives in the household, or the household has a possession that I deem they should not possess, I will pull my support regardless of their situation at that moment?
The chances of households recovering from financial setbacks grow exponentially when there are two parents in the home. If the GS true intention was to lift families out of poverty then everything possible to keep the father or husband in the household should have been done. Instead, GS required that the male figure is out of the house before any assistance was provided.
No, blacks were more likely to be hanged or jailed leaving their wives and children.
Let's clarify the statement. That was a major contributor to the rise of Black single-parent households from 20% before the Great Society [1964-1965] to 70% today.
Harvard is run by white people who give black people sports scholarships to make money off them. As a matter of fact that is a big thing in the US
This statement is very interesting. You state that you oppose discrimination of any sort, but here you justify it because black people get sports scholarships. What about the Oriental? He does not matter when a black benefit? That is huge and rather contradictory. I can conclude from this statement that you accept any racist act as long as blacks benefit and that blacks are not cognitively capable of getting into Harvard, but they are capable because of their anatomy and physiology.
So can I...
You are in denial...you seem to believe because there are no racist policies in the organization rules then systemic racism does not exist. What would you call a system that calls for a minimum of six months in prison to a maximum of six years in prison for a particular crime but only blacks are given the maximum and whites are given the minimum?
Interesting how you refer to the judicial system that believes innocent till proven guilty, and you deem it guilty without any evidence. You keep stating this happens but where is the proof.
You refuse to accept the evidence because you want 10000 test cases...In your neck of the woods discrimination based on race in a system is not systemic racism because it is not a system policy
Don't make assumptions. I believe the events happened, I don't have any reason to believe the events did not. If you make the accusation that this is systemic racism then it's your obligation to post the evidence.
So if all white hotdog vendors charges blacks $5.00 for a hotdog and charge whites $1.00 for the same hotdog. Do I have to find a cause before I complain or call it systemic racism?
It is illogical to argue absolutes.
Do you have any instance when
ALL WHITE X are discriminating against blacks?
BTW when you use 'all white' that is racist.
Yes, that is exactly what happened in slavery. I suppose the sub-population that did not suffer was not the cause.
You tell me...I said white supremacists but you probably don't believe they exist.
Yes, there are also white ghettos... What exactly is your point? Not all whites are white supremacists.
Is that the only difference? remember Whites gets shorter prison sentence and pay less for hotdogs
Yep, they will pay less for housing they will get loans and lots of white privilege.
No, it does not. Non-whites do not have the same privilege as whites.
This is exactly what a racist would write.
Wrong question, why do you not want to see the same with black communities? Tulsa race massacre
How do you come to this conclusion? Based on Tulsa. And this is a typical racist ploy. Accuse me of racism, and the evidence that I am a racist is an event that happened before I was born.
You fail to see the reality...The average white person still think that blacks should work for no pay
Another racist comment "average white person"
How is it easier to vote when the voting times are shorter and there are fewer ballot boxes? How many people were found to have cheated? Are you one of those who believe that Trump won the election? Maybe you were there at the US capitol on Jan 6th
Remember what I wrote.
When this topic comes up on either talk radio or on TV it is entertaining to watch or hear the discussion. One side makes the same ambiguous claim. The opposition asks for one new voting rule, regulation, or practice that makes voting difficult for anyone. The one's making the claim has never cited one item.
Seems you fall in that category also.