36: I remain unconvinced that it had anything to do with laziness.
You surmise and offer no proof for your contention that these folks were lazy in school, lazy about coming to work, had too many kids etc.,. You contend that is why these folks didn't get town water but offer nothing as evidence other than the 'definition of lazy'. You second guess the judge with no evidence other than your imagination.
Offer something more substantial or stfu.
38: There is no detail on the offer of water service. How long ago? What were the terms? Was there a meeting? Who actually refused? We have no information to determine what the conditions were at that point and whether there was discrimination or not.
The article you cited seems to support PBR's position that false claims of discrimination exist, and stem from a desire to ask for govt. handouts.
Of course this:
"What government action causes a person to act a fool in school, sleep all day, and not do thier job if they bother to show up at all or have children that they don't take care of?"
seems like a rhetorical question / hyperbole, and along with the definition of lazy likely distracts more than it illuminates.
italian-scallion
Jul 11, 2008 7:56am
"There is no detail on the offer of water service."
Exactly. Testimony detailing the offer was not allowed.
42: I don't see it that way at all. The article indicates that there is a history of discrimination in this country that has often been written into law or allowed through cultural neglect. It is the business of the government to redress these wrongs when they are brought to light. This judgement is an example of that sort of corrective activity.
I want to know why such definitions of laziness were posted in the first place. The article in question may prove that some people try to take advantage of the gubment (if in fact the court's decision was wrong) but nowhere in the article does it mention laziness.
Oh wait, I almost forgot, they are black. Never mind.
42: Where is the evidence of "false claims of discrimination" which "stem from a desire to ask for govt. handouts" ??
You are second guessing the court. Again, the forum rules state"BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY OR REFRAIN."
Strange collusions here; I'm beginnning to figure that the folks who don't seem to smell the skunk must live in houses permeated by a similar fragrance.
46 - I'm simply skeptical. I've read your posts for a while now and you are always one of the first to jump up and yell "CONSPIRACY" whenever there is a question of civil rights being violated. While I believe that injustice and prejudiced exist I do not automatically assume it is the case with every news story. These people may have been denied water because they are black, but with all that testimony being withheld I fail to see how the courts could have made a fair decision. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I don't know.
46. Tar them all with the same brush? Sounds like a lesson learned from the enemy.
Assume Good Faith.
Well water is common here. I grew up without indoor plumbing, and getting washed under a pump. There are honest reasons I am unsympathetic to someone grabbing my tax dollars based on the "discrimination" of suffering the same fate I and many others have experienced.
Not everyone has government water. Maybe they should, but the reasons they do not are not based in racism.
Ogmin