Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[danielpalos]

the right wing is welcome to post some actual examples, not just right wing fantasy.

Why ask for examples, why not ask for academic studies?

what ever you have, dear.

 

[danielpalos]

That's the irony of the point of view that everyone should be "treated" equally. It requires government to do the opposite.

no, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

equal protection of the law is what we are supposed to be getting.

We're talking about the conception of civil rights that seeks to ensure that all people are treated equal by the rest of society, rather than ensure equal protection of the law.

Public morals is a requirement. Socialism requires social morals for free.

 

[Conservative65]

That's the irony of the point of view that everyone should be "treated" equally. It requires government to do the opposite.

no, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

equal protection of the law is what we are supposed to be getting.

We're talking about the conception of civil rights that seeks to ensure that all people are treated equal by the rest of society, rather than ensure equal protection of the law.

Public morals is a requirement. Socialism requires social morals for free.

Morals based on whose standard? Lefties constantly tell us morals shouldn't pushed on people. That is, until they want to push theirs on society.

 

[danielpalos]

That's the irony of the point of view that everyone should be "treated" equally. It requires government to do the opposite.

no, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

equal protection of the law is what we are supposed to be getting.

We're talking about the conception of civil rights that seeks to ensure that all people are treated equal by the rest of society, rather than ensure equal protection of the law.

Public morals is a requirement. Socialism requires social morals for free.

Morals based on whose standard? Lefties constantly tell us morals shouldn't pushed on people. That is, until they want to push theirs on society.

We have a Constitution for our civic, public morals.

 

[eflatminor]

I voted 'Not Really"

I vote this way because I absolutely 100% believe that there should be no bias whatsoever when to comes to all things government. Equal voting, equal public services, equal everything. Government should be blind to anything other than citizenship.

However, I hold private property sacrosanct. I therefore do not believe the federal government has the right, nor the Constitutional power, to tell a shop owner who they should serve. Personally, I would gladly protest the racist shop owner with you, but we're talking about the federal government. I would stand against titles in the '64 law that allow the feds to meddling in property and private contracts, including employment.

We need more freedom, not more meddling. You do not need more rules, enforced by armed government agents. You need more jobs. That, we can work on.

Do you agree with the law that prohibits individuals from screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded place where there is no fire?

Why/why not?

I believe in laws that punish anyone that infringes on the rights of another such as taking what doesn't belong to them or by hurting someone unnecessarily. If your idiot in the theater does that, he should face prosecution. I do not believe in the leftist's notion of laws designed to prevent what they think 'might' happen.

Now what does this have to do with civil rights?

Somewhat less than a fascinating deliberation Marc....

 

[Conservative65]

That's the irony of the point of view that everyone should be "treated" equally. It requires government to do the opposite.

no, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

equal protection of the law is what we are supposed to be getting.

We're talking about the conception of civil rights that seeks to ensure that all people are treated equal by the rest of society, rather than ensure equal protection of the law.

Public morals is a requirement. Socialism requires social morals for free.

Morals based on whose standard? Lefties constantly tell us morals shouldn't pushed on people. That is, until they want to push theirs on society.

We have a Constitution for our civic, public morals.

One that you Liberals tend to read into what you WANT it to say while pushing your agenda.

 

[danielpalos]

no, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

equal protection of the law is what we are supposed to be getting.

We're talking about the conception of civil rights that seeks to ensure that all people are treated equal by the rest of society, rather than ensure equal protection of the law.

Public morals is a requirement. Socialism requires social morals for free.

Morals based on whose standard? Lefties constantly tell us morals shouldn't pushed on people. That is, until they want to push theirs on society.

We have a Constitution for our civic, public morals.

One that you Liberals tend to read into what you WANT it to say while pushing your agenda.

the right wing is even worse.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes, it does.

We're talking about the conception of civil rights that seeks to ensure that all people are treated equal by the rest of society, rather than ensure equal protection of the law.

Public morals is a requirement. Socialism requires social morals for free.

Morals based on whose standard? Lefties constantly tell us morals shouldn't pushed on people. That is, until they want to push theirs on society.

We have a Constitution for our civic, public morals.

One that you Liberals tend to read into what you WANT it to say while pushing your agenda.

the right wing is even worse.

You mean by only wanting what the Constitution grants the government the authority to do be done? I support a strong military and military spending. That's Constitutional and it can be shown. You support social welfare programs and have yet to show a single word where they are a delegated power.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do you believe that civil rights needs more attention, or it already have had enough and it's time to move on?

Why/why not?

Excuse me? How does one in good conscience ever get enough of not enough social justice for all of one's countrymen and simultaneously and without hypocrisy claim to be a patriot and good citizen? Yes, I realize my rhetoric inveighs tacitly against some aspects of negative liberty, but c'mon....at some level one has to realize that literally millions of people have not conspired or contrived for unscrupulous ends in attesting to their having been on one or several instances denied their civil rights. What does anyone do when they don't feel maligned by another? Nothing. They go on about their business.

 

[dblack]

That's the irony of the point of view that everyone should be "treated" equally. It requires government to do the opposite.

no, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

equal protection of the law is what we are supposed to be getting.

We're talking about the conception of civil rights that seeks to ensure that all people are treated equal by the rest of society, rather than ensure equal protection of the law.

Public morals is a requirement. Socialism requires social morals for free.

Take another hit and try it in English. Are you trying to say government should be legislating morality?

 

[danielpalos]

Public morals is a requirement. Socialism requires social morals for free.

Morals based on whose standard? Lefties constantly tell us morals shouldn't pushed on people. That is, until they want to push theirs on society.

We have a Constitution for our civic, public morals.

One that you Liberals tend to read into what you WANT it to say while pushing your agenda.

the right wing is even worse.

You mean by only wanting what the Constitution grants the government the authority to do be done? I support a strong military and military spending. That's Constitutional and it can be shown. You support social welfare programs and have yet to show a single word where they are a delegated power.

The common Defense is not the common Offense, nor is it the general Warfare. Only in right wing fantasy, is the right, for limited government instead of, command economics, like usual.

 

[Papageorgio]

Marc doesn't want answer, he wants a discussion.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, it does.

We're talking about the conception of civil rights that seeks to ensure that all people are treated equal by the rest of society, rather than ensure equal protection of the law.

Public morals is a requirement. Socialism requires social morals for free.

Morals based on whose standard? Lefties constantly tell us morals shouldn't pushed on people. That is, until they want to push theirs on society.

We have a Constitution for our civic, public morals.

One that you Liberals tend to read into what you WANT it to say while pushing your agenda.

the right wing is even worse.

So that's a justification? That line of thinking has been a huge problem in America. It's time to call out those on both sides that accept this line of thinking.

 

[kaz]

Do you believe that civil rights needs more attention, or it already have had enough and it's time to move on?

Why/why not?

Move on, all it is now is a political weapon

 

[kaz]

We have them. Stop fighting for rights you already have.

They are fighting to KEEP the rights they already have. Things ranging from voter suppression to being forced to live in toxic areas of a city marks the disdain for civil rights heaped upon non Whites by White governance.

No. And if you gave a damn about voter suppression outside of party politics you would be figuring out ways to help obtain birth certificates and social security cards and Drivers licenses and state IDs. Which would help in a plethora of ways outside of voting for your party. No. You just want to scream.

I am not worried about voter id. I can understand the logic for that even when I know there has never been widespread voter fraud. A more salient technique called Crosscheck was responsible for purging hundreds of thousands of LEGAL ( potential Democratic) voters from the rolls.nAs you might be aware A lot of Hispanics have the same first and last names. Thousands were purged off the rolls because of that. And due to the adoption of last names given to slaves to show ownership, many Blacks have common names such as James Brown, or Jim Smith. Whatever the criterion used to purge potential democrat voters from the rolls, those doing the purging had unbridled authority to carry out their mission without oversight from the opposition.

And there you have it.

And hopefully, many of those who "got it" will take note and do something to end voter suppression!

Those poor dead people and illegal aliens not being able to vote, it's just awful. And the rest of us only being allowed to vote once! Pure disenfranchisement it is!

 

[kaz]

Favored classes are unconstitutional. Enforce equality under the law, not favoritism under the law.

Example?

I believe the war on terror has eaten away at our rights . Death by 1000 cuts . Support your local ACLU branch !

AA, you seriously didn't get that? You need to go to a different AA ...

 

[Meathead]

The OP really doesn't mean civil rights. He means preferential treatment for "people of color" which is intrinsically contrary to civil rights.

 

[Conservative65]

Morals based on whose standard? Lefties constantly tell us morals shouldn't pushed on people. That is, until they want to push theirs on society.

We have a Constitution for our civic, public morals.

One that you Liberals tend to read into what you WANT it to say while pushing your agenda.

the right wing is even worse.

You mean by only wanting what the Constitution grants the government the authority to do be done? I support a strong military and military spending. That's Constitutional and it can be shown. You support social welfare programs and have yet to show a single word where they are a delegated power.

The common Defense is not the common Offense, nor is it the general Warfare. Only in right wing fantasy, is the right, for limited government instead of, command economics, like usual.

Sometimes the best defense if a good offense. You're arguing about tactics. I'm saying that the military is a delegated power for which funding is Constitutional. That you don't like how the military carries out it's job is your problem.

I'm for limited government. However, the military is a delegated for which the government has authority under that concept.

 

[Timmy]

The OP really doesn't mean civil rights. He means preferential treatment for "people of color" which is intrinsically contrary to civil rights.

What's preferred treatment ? How they are the preferred target of stop n frisk?

 

[dblack]

The OP really doesn't mean civil rights. He means preferential treatment for "people of color" which is intrinsically contrary to civil rights.

What's preferred treatment ? How they are the preferred target of stop n frisk?

I think he's referring to protected classes. But what you're talking about is also a violation of equal protection.