What does "civil rights" mean to you?

[Quantum Windbag]

They decreases because people learned they can't treat people a certain way.
If we had done nothing, it would still be the same.

Racism has become less obvious, people are less willing to admit to it, but it still exists and evolves with the changing demographics of out country.

Link?

 

[Anguille]

They decreases because people learned they can't treat people a certain way.
If we had done nothing, it would still be the same.

Racism has become less obvious, people are less willing to admit to it, but it still exists and evolves with the changing demographics of out country.

Link?

Touché. However, unlike Modbert, I did not qualify my statement claiming "It is a fact .."

 

[manifold]

If we had done nothing, it would still be the same.

I guess we'll never know, will we.

 

[manifold]

QW's comment raises real implications to consider. If an act is unconstitutional yet necessary (for example, some think the following are unconstitutional: Louisiana Purchase, the ICC Act, Civil Rights Acts, etc)., do we simply pretend they are constitutional if they are necessary.

The short answer is yes, for better or worse.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If we had done nothing, it would still be the same.

I guess we'll never know, will we.

The manifoil libertarian principle challenge: Is Voting a Civil Right, and by extension; is manifoil truly an old school traditionalist and literalist[sic]?

manifoil's libertarian principle: "If the government is imposing anything, including the particulars of the Civil Rights Act, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection."

Is voting a civil right?​

If voting is a civil right, one would think one would have to have issues with the founding fathers and the original imposition(s) of who could vote and who could not vote in each of their respective states, in order to hold true to the manifoil libertarian principle.

If voting is not a civil right ("a civil right is a protection"), then...

 

[froggy]

Things are different because the we didn't allow business owners to discriminate.
Personally I like the fact I don't live in 1950.

Well there's also the fact that the number of racists in this country has also sharply decreased in terms of percentage since 1950. Like I said in my very first post in response to Mani, in 1964 it was necessary.

Those back then that were discriminated against were Americans not illegals, illegals shouldn't be here to be discriminated against.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not saying this so much to you Mani as in general. However, people must remember that the Civil Rights Act was not passed in 2010, it was passed in 1964. A much different time, a much different world. Across the entire country, racism was rampant to the point that people who were non-white had their civil rights violated beyond just not being able to sit at a lunch counter. They were given roadblock after roadblock to not even being able to vote, something that people often take for granted today.

Not only that, but the laws of the time made it highly difficult to even make a living for one's family.

Here in 2010, we may look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as unnecessary and unconstitutional, but at the time it was necessary.

You are arguing when and why the Civil Rights Act of 1064 was enacted, not whether the manifoil libertarian principle holds water: "If the government is imposing anything...it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The interference of federalism occurred because state and local governments as well as private business, just not in the traditional South but in the country, denied millions basic due process and fair treatment.

We got the Civil Rights bill because We the People failed to live up to the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution.

The interference of federalism occurred because state and local governments as well as private business, just not in the traditional South but in the country, denied millions basic due process and fair treatment.

We got the Civil Rights bill because We the People failed to live up to the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Exactly.

No exactly true

The principles the founders held did not include the same definitions of terms held by their children, and succeeding generations of Americans. Example: Who got to vote. Who was a citizen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Racism has become less obvious, people are less willing to admit to it, but it still exists and evolves with the changing demographics of out country.

Link?

Touché. However, unlike Modbert, I did not qualify my statement claiming "It is a fact .."

I will accept that. I just couldn't let the statement of opinion pass as unchallenged fact. Glad you have a sense of humor about it.

 

[Modbert]

Touché. However, unlike Modbert, I did not qualify my statement claiming "It is a fact .."

I don't really see racists winning elections anymore, you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Touché. However, unlike Modbert, I did not qualify my statement claiming "It is a fact .."

I don't really see racists winning elections anymore, you?

Since they've exchanged their sheets for Coats, Ties (males), and Dress Pant Suits (women)? No.

 

[Modbert]

Since they've exchanged their sheets for Coats, Ties (males), and Dress Pant Suits (women)? No.

I'm not saying racists still don't get elected, especially in some parts of the country. However, racism isn't going to go away no matter what you do. I rather it be out in the open, so I know who to avoid and who to not give money to.

 

[Modbert]

Not saying this so much to you Mani as in general. However, people must remember that the Civil Rights Act was not passed in 2010, it was passed in 1964. A much different time, a much different world. Across the entire country, racism was rampant to the point that people who were non-white had their civil rights violated beyond just not being able to sit at a lunch counter. They were given roadblock after roadblock to not even being able to vote, something that people often take for granted today.

Not only that, but the laws of the time made it highly difficult to even make a living for one's family.

Here in 2010, we may look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as unnecessary and unconstitutional, but at the time it was necessary.

You are arguing when and why the Civil Rights Act of 1064 was enacted, not whether the manifoil libertarian principle holds water: "If the government is imposing anything...it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection."

I was making a general statement, as I pointed out in the first sentence of it. So yes, I'm arguing why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was necessary at that time in history.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Since they've exchanged their sheets for Coats, Ties (males), and Dress Pant Suits (women)? No.

I'm not saying racists still don't get elected, especially in some parts of the country. However, racism isn't going to go away no matter what you do. I rather it be out in the open, so I know who to avoid and who to not give money to.

ageed. and that is why they have changed costumes. they're on to you.

 

[Anguille]

Touché. However, unlike Modbert, I did not qualify my statement claiming "It is a fact .."

I don't really see racists winning elections anymore, you?

That's what your "fact" is based on? Your superficial observation? Things are more complex than they seem.

 

[Modbert]

That's what your "fact" is based on? Your superficial observation? Things are more complex than they seem.

Well let's see, name some racists in Congress and that have been elected in the last 10 years.

It's not merely based off on that. However, it is a good example considering Congress is only representative of the people who elect them.

 

[Anguille]

That's what your "fact" is based on? Your superficial observation? Things are more complex than they seem.

Well let's see, name some racists in Congress and that have been elected in the last 10 years.

It's not merely based off on that. However, it is a good example considering Congress is only representative of the people who elect them.

So what else is your "fact" based on? Aren't you just being too pig-headed to admit your "fact' is only an opinion?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Perhaps I'm an old school traditionalist and literalist, but to me a civil right is a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do. Such as imprisoning political dissenters, denying due process, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It is NOT a government imposed, arbitrary determination of fairness. In fact, I submit that if the government is imposing anything, including the particulars of the Civil Rights Act, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection.

What does civil rights mean to you?

Civil rights are by definition any right protected by law. Not that complicated.

The CRA doesn't infringe anyone's civil rights - there is no civil right to refuse service based on race. You don't like it move.

 

[Modbert]

So what else is your "fact" based on? Aren't you just being too pig-headed to admit your "fact' is only an opinion?

It's based off common sense. Still waiting for you to start naming those racists. I'll even start for you, David Duke, he served one term between 1990-1992. It's not that difficult Anguille.

 

[Anguille]

So what else is your "fact" based on? Aren't you just being too pig-headed to admit your "fact' is only an opinion?

It's based off common sense. Still waiting for you to start naming those racists. I'll even start for you, David Duke, he served one term between 1990-1992. It's not that difficult Anguille.

!992 was more than ten years ago. But thanks for volunteering to do the research you've assigned to me.

Hey, maybe you'll actually learn something.