Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[MarcATL]

Then where is BLM regarding black on black murders. The silence in the inner cities on that issue is deafening. The group doesn't want any honest discussion as that might take self reflection instead of deflection. Do all lives matter to BLM. So far their actions and rhetoric would prove otherwise.

The same place you are regarding white on white murders.

Proved my point. Deflection.
By the way I am for the death penalty for any white who murders and agree with Dylan Roofs penalty and feel it should take place immediately. Your assumption fails.

I answered your question legitimately. You just don't like the answer. Also YOU just deflected, as Dylan wasn't an example of white-on-white crime.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

It has had TOO much attention, and has become reverse discrimination and needs to be reversed itself.

What does "race" have to do with it?

They are reverse discriminating on grounds of race.

How do? Do expound .

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?

I don't support the concept of special rights disguised as civil rights as applied today.

Who's getting special rights, and how?

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?

Move on, all it is now is a political weapon

Describe how it's used as a weapon.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

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

How did you calculate that?

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?

The time has come to stop mollycoddling one group in our society who complain s the loudest and does the least to help themselves. Civil Rights movement is now Black Lives Matter terrorist cop killers and the constant din of pissing and moaning ringing in everyone's ears. All other races seem to have moved forward...except blacks. Civil rights is all about division and hatred of the white race...period.

Wrong!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

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?

I don't support the concept of special rights disguised as civil rights as applied today.

Who's getting special rights, and how?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Current legislation is replete with 'special rights'. We've all but given up on the concept of equal rights under the law, with government cutting a different deal for everyone depending on which interest group they belong to. Powerful minorities and industry groups vie for exemptions and perks.

But, as many here have point out, it's impossible to discuss equal rights under law without first establishing what kind of rights governments should be protecting in the first place.

 

[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.

From your video: Malcolm said that blacks and whites should sit at the same table without fear and without hurting the other's feelings to discuss the issues in order to resolve them.

Does that sound like hatred to you?

Additionally, the video ends with a picture of Martin and Malcolm shaking hands with big smiles on their faces. What does that communicate to you?

Lastly, the so-called violent leader was assassinated, then the so-called non-violent leader was assassinated. Again, what does that communicate to you?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The premise of the question is wrong. Civil rights is not a "fight." Just a vote churning machine for Democrats.

Can you explain how?

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?

what interests me is that the people who yap the most about "natural rights" are the ones least willing to acknowledge that anyone but they are entitled to those rights.

It is quite interesting indeed.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

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?

what interests me is that the people who yap the most about "natural rights" are the ones least willing to acknowledge that anyone but they are entitled to those rights.

How do you mean? I've not seen any arguments suggesting that natural rights shouldn't be protected for all. Do you have any examples in mind?

 

[Doc1]

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

Indulge me son, repost it.

 

[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

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

Link?

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

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.

#115

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Meathead]

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

How did you calculate that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

History and definitions in the English language. "Civil Rights" indeed. Exploitation of white guilt is far more apropos, but certainly not as catchy.

Stop begging ffs.

 

[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?

I don't support the concept of special rights disguised as civil rights as applied today.

Who's getting special rights, and how?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Current legislation is replete with 'special rights'. We've all but given up on the concept of equal rights under the law, with government cutting a different deal for everyone depending on which interest group they belong to. Powerful minorities and industry groups vie for exemptions and perks.

But, as many here have point out, it's impossible to discuss equal rights under law without first establishing what kind of rights governments should be protecting in the first place.

Cite some examples of those "replete" examples.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

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

Indulge me son, repost it.

#115

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

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

How did you calculate that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

History and definitions in the English language. "Civil Rights" indeed. Exploitation of white guilt is far more apropos, but certainly not as catchy.

Stop begging ffs.

#115.

Respond accordingly.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative65]

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

While civil rights has a textbook definition, it does mean different things to different people in the application of it. Some think civil rights involves providing special treatment to certain groups because of the past.

 

[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.

Link?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk