Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[Conservative65]

Sorry, still don't see any of the program you say the federal government can do listed in the Constitution. I do, however, see words about the military.

social programs are the "colonel general" welfare, not the General Welfare. is that simpler for that fascist, right wing?

That means they shouldn't exist. Guess you'll have to do for yourself or go without when you won't.

that does not provide for the general welfare; providing for the general bad-fare, is not in our Constitution, either.

Providing for the military is. Don't like it. Tough shit. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

so is providing for the private forms of welfare as ordered by Congress for the general Welfare.

Not until you can show me the specific words of each of the social welfare programs that exist in the Constitution.

 

[Conservative65]

The fantastical right wing claims it is a "work or die" ethic from the Age of Iron, that is important.

Does that Only apply to the poor?

Do you only consider manual labor as work?

the right wing, seems to think so.

i believe in faithful execution of our own laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, simply for the sake of public morals in the public sector.

I think anything that contributes is considered work whether it be physical, mental, or a combination of both.

then, unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, should not be a problem for the right wing.

If you're unemployed, you're not working and shouldn't get paid.

 

[danielpalos]

It's not the mandated responsibility of one group, those you think have too much, to support and keep up another group, those you think have too little. Social welfare does that.

Why do you believe its the responsibility of those that do for themselves to support those that won't do for themselves?

yes, dear; that is what providing for the general welfare, means. Why do you believe it doesn't?

Because I can read English.

Promoting the general Welfare is also, in our Constitution.

General welfare doesn't social welfare.

yes, the general welfare encompasses, private welfare, corporal welfare, and even the more dogmatic, sergeant-major-general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

social programs are the "colonel general" welfare, not the General Welfare. is that simpler for that fascist, right wing?

That means they shouldn't exist. Guess you'll have to do for yourself or go without when you won't.

that does not provide for the general welfare; providing for the general bad-fare, is not in our Constitution, either.

Providing for the military is. Don't like it. Tough shit. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

so is providing for the private forms of welfare as ordered by Congress for the general Welfare.

Not until you can show me the specific words of each of the social welfare programs that exist in the Constitution.

the general welfare is the social welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

The fantastical right wing claims it is a "work or die" ethic from the Age of Iron, that is important.

Does that Only apply to the poor?

Do you only consider manual labor as work?

the right wing, seems to think so.

i believe in faithful execution of our own laws regarding the legal concept of employment at will, simply for the sake of public morals in the public sector.

I think anything that contributes is considered work whether it be physical, mental, or a combination of both.

then, unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, should not be a problem for the right wing.

If you're unemployed, you're not working and shouldn't get paid.

using one's mind is a form of work.

 

[MarcATL]

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?

Malcom X hatred of white people.

At the time of these statements were blacks or whites the perpetrators of racial injustice against the other?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Do try NOT to get personal. It's serious topic. Respect it. Please..

We are, perhaps you might urge Marc to answer the simple question of "What does he mean by Civil Rights".

Does crying ( legitimately) for "rights" somehow negate any " responsibilities"? Can you have one without the other long term?

All I'm asking of poor Marc is to define what he means, until he does there can be no real discussion.

Okay. Get left behind. That's fine.

This is what YOU said.

"I think if you don't know what "civil rights" means when a black person asks you, then the problem is with you, not him."

This is what he said....

"
MarcATL said: ↑
Why do so many of you equate civil rights with "doing something that only benefits black people?"

Your Mission, if you should choose to accept it is to reconcile your statement with his....and the tell me why my request of to then actually "define" what he means is off base.

This, nor you or him are my first rodeo son.

I posted the definition already. You, and others, have been ignoring it and interpreting it as you wish, which is not actually as it is.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Why do so many of you equate civil rights with "doing something that only benefits black people?"

g5000
Pay closer attention son.

He's right. That's how a lot of people perceive civil rights.

"What? You gave him the same protections of the law as me? What makes him so SPECIAL?!?!"

If you think blacks are given special privileges, then talk about them. Engage!

Bingo. They are doing everything else BUT!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

[emoji38]

I read his autobiography before it was cool to read it.

It was written as told to Darth Vader. I'm sure you get that joke.

I have a great deal of respect for Malcolm X. He showed real character. One of the toughest things for a man to do is admit when he is wrong, and Malcolm did that. More than once! That's what made him a great man.

And he paid the heaviest price for his integrity and honor.

It did cross my mind to mention Malcom. It really did. How could I not, considering your avatar? [emoji38]

Unfortunately, I think too many people in the black community follow the ideals of the old, radical Nation of Islam Malcolm and not the wizened Malcolm.

Also, I think if Malcolm had not been killed, he would have gone down the same marxist road as Andrew Young. So (and please don't take this the wrong way) his death was timely.

I believe you have a comprehensive, and mostly correct view of Brother Minister Malcolm X.

However, you must understand that I vehemently disagree with you assessment of his timely demise.

I think the black community suffers from his loss more than any other person.

As for the bolded, what makes you say that? I also vehemently disagree with that. Which other ethnicity is more forgiving than the black community? Name one.

I was afraid you would get upset at my "timely death" remark.

Toward the end of his life, Malcolm began to show marxist tendencies. I understand the times ( I lived in them), and I understand why people gravitate toward the opposite pole of their oppressors. Nevertheless, this was not a good development.

Being a VERY persuasive person, Malcolm would have led his flock in that direction.

As for the radical Nation of Islam thing, you can't tell me there isn't a widely held opinion in the black community that all white people are the devil.

This was one of Malcolm's admissions of being wrong for which I respect him. He grew to realize that simply was not true.

However, that is still believed by too many blacks.

And you have absolutely no argument from me that the black community is an incredibly forgiving community. Their patience, understanding, forgiveness, and resilience as a whole people is downright awe inspiring. I frequently marvel over this, because I know I would never be as accepting and forgiving as they.

When you say widely, what percentage are you thinking? Additionally, do you think they have any legitimate basis for that viewpoint?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

"Interesting. Your answer is part of the problem. I mean, I thank you for your honesty, however, how can anything be resolved when there's a segment of society, that believes there is no problem."

Or maybe you're determined to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

The only problem that I can think of that doesn't exist is voter fraud.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

I would not have allowed immigrants to qualify for Affirmative Action policies. Why? Because it pushed out the native born group it was designed to help.

I concur. After Affirmative Action was implemented every minority out there took advantage of it including White women who were underrepresented in higher education and in the job market. I think that originally AA was intended to facilitate the upward mobility of aspiring Blacks who were hampered by discrimination and White demagoguery. But due to wide spread animosity against helping Blacks, a more inclusive strategy emerged whereas any underrepresented group would qualify for AA. As White women and Asians jumped to the front of the line in educational pursuits, Blacks were still being held up by the opposition as the poster children of Affirmative Action.

The original thinking was that integration=social mobility. The middle and upper class blacks looked at the 45% of blacks still living in poverty and said.......so now what?

with all due respect I am obliged to question your premise that 45% of Blacks still live in poverty. The figure is closer to 27%.

This is where the Democrats attempting to portray themselves as leaders in maintaining civil rights fail.
U.S. Post Office Job Cuts Threaten Black Middle Class | The Huffington Post

This is ok because the Democrats approved. Maybe you can change IDs and run around yelling automation is the issue.

You will have to put this one in layman's terms. i am not sure what you are getting at here.

Nailed it!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

There is a world of difference. Because the "civil rights" as espoused by black movement leaders LEAVE out the broader issues in Civil Liberties. Including asset forfeiture, eminent domain, spying on citizens, etc. Have never HEARD the NAACP take those issues to the mat. Even THO --- the first 2 of those DIRECTLY affect the black communities disproportionately.

And you don't do "justice reform" just as a Civil rights issue for the benefit of one class. Just as you don't "fix" Fergusons by declaring the problem to be RACISM.. CLEARLY, the problems in Ferguson stem largely by failure of govt. NOT by racism..

Groups and organizations tend to address the issues and/or problems that affect them most. So perhaps your argument shouldn't be that there is a difference, but that they should also address those issues you brought to the fore. Yes?

That's not productive if "civil rights" means different things to different groups. Civil Liberties apply to ALL. And if the causes of grievances are not truely racism -- all this is better addressed from a BROADER coalition of interests.

Lets look at asset forfeiture for instance. Entire black community in the Deep South is raided by BATF and DEA and FBI. Town is dirt poor and 99% black. COWS are confiscated without trial. Tractors, farms and money is confiscated without trial. Entire TOWN is ransacked because of alleged drug violations.. We could on about how urban black communities are targeting for eminent domain because they are a cheap target. But it's not PRIMARILY a race issue is it? Although when Sharpton or the NAACP picks this up -- they re-brand it as "environmental justice" with a DISTINCTIVE racial overtone. Not MY preferences bud. I'm on board with ALL of this. Not just the stuff YOU want to paint as racial or Civil Rights.

Are those previous examples a Civil Rights issue because of RACISM -- or is it a larger Civil Liberty issue? You made it sound that I was some kind of primadonna only caring about MY hide. But true Civil Libertarians are working these abuses for the benefit of EVERYONE. And a lot of credibility would be gained by "black causes" if they spent less falsely claiming that most of this abuses are racial --- and not universal crime, justice, and fairness issues.

But civil rights DOESN'T mean different things to different people. It only has ONE definition. Perhaps SOME people simply wish it to be what it is not.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Disir]

I would not have allowed immigrants to qualify for Affirmative Action policies. Why? Because it pushed out the native born group it was designed to help.

I concur. After Affirmative Action was implemented every minority out there took advantage of it including White women who were underrepresented in higher education and in the job market. I think that originally AA was intended to facilitate the upward mobility of aspiring Blacks who were hampered by discrimination and White demagoguery. But due to wide spread animosity against helping Blacks, a more inclusive strategy emerged whereas any underrepresented group would qualify for AA. As White women and Asians jumped to the front of the line in educational pursuits, Blacks were still being held up by the opposition as the poster children of Affirmative Action.

The original thinking was that integration=social mobility. The middle and upper class blacks looked at the 45% of blacks still living in poverty and said.......so now what?

with all due respect I am obliged to question your premise that 45% of Blacks still live in poverty. The figure is closer to 27%.

This is where the Democrats attempting to portray themselves as leaders in maintaining civil rights fail.
U.S. Post Office Job Cuts Threaten Black Middle Class | The Huffington Post

This is ok because the Democrats approved. Maybe you can change IDs and run around yelling automation is the issue.

You will have to put this one in layman's terms. i am not sure what you are getting at here.

Nailed it!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I didn't even see this. Nailed what?

The 45% came from about 1990. It was the beginning of a plethora of material that was kicked out by Gates and the like that queried what obligation they had to others because of their success.

 

[Bush92]

Madison also, never said the common defense meant the common offense or the general warfare. Only in right wing fantasy, can there be that much, latitude of construction.

Your argument centers around YOUR opinion and disagreement about how something authorized by the Constitution (military) is done not what the Constitution says. Invalid argument.

It is completely valid; as long as you can use it for the common Defense, we can use it for the general Welfare.

General welfare does not equal social welfare. Sorry, try again.

Yes, it does; why do you believe it doesn't?

It's not the mandated responsibility of one group, those you think have too much, to support and keep up another group, those you think have too little. Social welfare does that.

Why do you believe its the responsibility of those that do for themselves to support those that won't do for themselves?

Maggie Thatcher..."Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money."

 

[MarcATL]

[emoji38]

I read his autobiography before it was cool to read it.

It was written as told to Darth Vader. I'm sure you get that joke.

I have a great deal of respect for Malcolm X. He showed real character. One of the toughest things for a man to do is admit when he is wrong, and Malcolm did that. More than once! That's what made him a great man.

And he paid the heaviest price for his integrity and honor.

It did cross my mind to mention Malcom. It really did. How could I not, considering your avatar? [emoji38]

Unfortunately, I think too many people in the black community follow the ideals of the old, radical Nation of Islam Malcolm and not the wizened Malcolm.

Also, I think if Malcolm had not been killed, he would have gone down the same marxist road as Andrew Young. So (and please don't take this the wrong way) his death was timely.

I believe you have a comprehensive, and mostly correct view of Brother Minister Malcolm X.

However, you must understand that I vehemently disagree with you assessment of his timely demise.

I think the black community suffers from his loss more than any other person.

As for the bolded, what makes you say that? I also vehemently disagree with that. Which other ethnicity is more forgiving than the black community? Name one.

I was afraid you would get upset at my "timely death" remark.

Toward the end of his life, Malcolm began to show marxist tendencies. I understand the times ( I lived in them), and I understand why people gravitate toward the opposite pole of their oppressors. Nevertheless, this was not a good development.

Being a VERY persuasive person, Malcolm would have led his flock in that direction.

As for the radical Nation of Islam thing, you can't tell me there isn't a widely held opinion in the black community that all white people are the devil.

This was one of Malcolm's admissions of being wrong for which I respect him. He grew to realize that simply was not true.

However, that is still believed by too many blacks.

And you have absolutely no argument from me that the black community is an incredibly forgiving community. Their patience, understanding, forgiveness, and resilience as a whole people is downright awe inspiring. I frequently marvel over this, because I know I would never be as accepting and forgiving as they.

I'm not upset. Just disagree. I'm really mostly pleased with your assessment of Malcolm X.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Bush92]

There is a world of difference. Because the "civil rights" as espoused by black movement leaders LEAVE out the broader issues in Civil Liberties. Including asset forfeiture, eminent domain, spying on citizens, etc. Have never HEARD the NAACP take those issues to the mat. Even THO --- the first 2 of those DIRECTLY affect the black communities disproportionately.

And you don't do "justice reform" just as a Civil rights issue for the benefit of one class. Just as you don't "fix" Fergusons by declaring the problem to be RACISM.. CLEARLY, the problems in Ferguson stem largely by failure of govt. NOT by racism..

Groups and organizations tend to address the issues and/or problems that affect them most. So perhaps your argument shouldn't be that there is a difference, but that they should also address those issues you brought to the fore. Yes?

That's not productive if "civil rights" means different things to different groups. Civil Liberties apply to ALL. And if the causes of grievances are not truely racism -- all this is better addressed from a BROADER coalition of interests.

Lets look at asset forfeiture for instance. Entire black community in the Deep South is raided by BATF and DEA and FBI. Town is dirt poor and 99% black. COWS are confiscated without trial. Tractors, farms and money is confiscated without trial. Entire TOWN is ransacked because of alleged drug violations.. We could on about how urban black communities are targeting for eminent domain because they are a cheap target. But it's not PRIMARILY a race issue is it? Although when Sharpton or the NAACP picks this up -- they re-brand it as "environmental justice" with a DISTINCTIVE racial overtone. Not MY preferences bud. I'm on board with ALL of this. Not just the stuff YOU want to paint as racial or Civil Rights.

Are those previous examples a Civil Rights issue because of RACISM -- or is it a larger Civil Liberty issue? You made it sound that I was some kind of primadonna only caring about MY hide. But true Civil Libertarians are working these abuses for the benefit of EVERYONE. And a lot of credibility would be gained by "black causes" if they spent less falsely claiming that most of this abuses are racial --- and not universal crime, justice, and fairness issues.

But civil rights DOESN'T mean different things to different people. It only has ONE definition. Perhaps SOME people simply wish it to be what it is not.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Yep...Civil Rights Movement 2017...kill a cop...vote Democratic.

 

[dblack]

There is a world of difference. Because the "civil rights" as espoused by black movement leaders LEAVE out the broader issues in Civil Liberties. Including asset forfeiture, eminent domain, spying on citizens, etc. Have never HEARD the NAACP take those issues to the mat. Even THO --- the first 2 of those DIRECTLY affect the black communities disproportionately.

And you don't do "justice reform" just as a Civil rights issue for the benefit of one class. Just as you don't "fix" Fergusons by declaring the problem to be RACISM.. CLEARLY, the problems in Ferguson stem largely by failure of govt. NOT by racism..

Groups and organizations tend to address the issues and/or problems that affect them most. So perhaps your argument shouldn't be that there is a difference, but that they should also address those issues you brought to the fore. Yes?

That's not productive if "civil rights" means different things to different groups. Civil Liberties apply to ALL. And if the causes of grievances are not truely racism -- all this is better addressed from a BROADER coalition of interests.

Lets look at asset forfeiture for instance. Entire black community in the Deep South is raided by BATF and DEA and FBI. Town is dirt poor and 99% black. COWS are confiscated without trial. Tractors, farms and money is confiscated without trial. Entire TOWN is ransacked because of alleged drug violations.. We could on about how urban black communities are targeting for eminent domain because they are a cheap target. But it's not PRIMARILY a race issue is it? Although when Sharpton or the NAACP picks this up -- they re-brand it as "environmental justice" with a DISTINCTIVE racial overtone. Not MY preferences bud. I'm on board with ALL of this. Not just the stuff YOU want to paint as racial or Civil Rights.

Are those previous examples a Civil Rights issue because of RACISM -- or is it a larger Civil Liberty issue? You made it sound that I was some kind of primadonna only caring about MY hide. But true Civil Libertarians are working these abuses for the benefit of EVERYONE. And a lot of credibility would be gained by "black causes" if they spent less falsely claiming that most of this abuses are racial --- and not universal crime, justice, and fairness issues.

But civil rights DOESN'T mean different things to different people. It only has ONE definition. Perhaps SOME people simply wish it to be what it is not.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Words mean whatever two people communicating agree that they mean. It's a frustrating fact of human language, but it's true. So, we must first agree on meanings of the words we are using before we can debate the ideas they represent.

 

[MarcATL]

Do try NOT to get personal. It's serious topic. Respect it. Please..

We are, perhaps you might urge Marc to answer the simple question of "What does he mean by Civil Rights".

I think if you don't know what "civil rights" means when a black person asks you, then the problem is with you, not him.

It probably gob smacks him that you even have to ask.

It's a legitimate question. Much of what people are after in the name of 'civil rights' has nothing to do with equal protection of the law.

No such thing as equal protection, that is a farce..

There most certainly is.

If the government bestows gifts upon you, and withholds those gifts from a hated class for no other reason than they are hated, that is unequal protection of the law. If the government bestows gifts upon you, and gives them to everyone regardless of who they are, that is equal protection of the laws, and that is the ultimate goal.

Government gifts are bestowed through legislation. Laws.

"Congress has appropriated free lollipops for everyone, except the negroes!"

If the government bestows a tax exemption on same-race marriages, but does not bestow that exemption on mixed race marriages, that is unequal protection of the laws. Our Supreme Court removed that inequality, to much crying of moral outrage by bigots.

Mixed race marriages now have equal protection of the laws throughout the land.

It's as if these guys simply ignore history, or worse, cherry pick it.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

This, nor you or him are my first rodeo son.

...and this doesn't appear to be a serious thread. Whites are bad, and that's that.

No serious conversation on race can begin until there is honesty on both sides.

I mentioned earlier - I think there are many who aren't interested in healing wounds or improving race relations. They only want to punish.

You won't get serious conversation there.
.

Where did I say or suggested that whites are bad?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

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?

No and HELL NO!

Why not? Please expound.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk