Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[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

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.

Civil Rights is the act of treating a group differently because race, religion, or gender. Like the Japanese-American internment during WW2.

 

[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.

Cite some examples of those "replete" examples.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Most 'tax incentives'. Most of the ways we 'enforce' the religion clause of the first amendment, which has been turned on its head - what was originally a call to keep government out of religion has become a special protection for religions that meet government approval. Most of the public accommodations provisions of the "civil rights" law (i.e. the establishment of protected classes). The similar application of "civil rights" laws in regard to employment discrimination. Much of what falls under labor law does this, by granting special rights to members of government approved labor organizations.

Let me know if you need more examples.

 

[danielpalos]

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."

How is our Peoples' fence, going?

 

[Conservative65]

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

Anyone that falls into a protected class where the term rights is preceded with (fill in the blank).

Anyone that is hired under programs like affirmative action. If the black color of someone's skin is a factor in any way during the hiring process, that's special.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

When there are things such as protected classes where (fill in the blank) characteristic is used or considered in the process, however slight it may be, that special because it applies only to certain ones not all equally.

 

[Conservative65]

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

Protected classes.

 

[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.

When there are things such as protected classes where (fill in the blank) characteristic is used or considered in the process, however slight it may be, that special because it applies only to certain ones not all equally.

Well, it can be argued (and it was the rationale of the Court) that banning discrimination based on certain characteristics can be applied equally. In theory, everyone's "right" to be protected from racial discrimination is protected by the Civil Rights Act. But in practice, protected classes have always been deliberate attempts to squelch unpopular biases - to protect groups that have enough political clout to lobby for them successfully.

The problem with protected classes is actually more fundamental, again coming back to our lack of consensus on what a 'right' means in the first place.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

When there are things such as protected classes where (fill in the blank) characteristic is used or considered in the process, however slight it may be, that special because it applies only to certain ones not all equally.

Well, it can be argued (and it was the rationale of the Court) that banning discrimination based on certain characteristics can be applied equally. In theory, everyone's "right" to be protected from racial discrimination is protected by the Civil Rights Act. But in practice, protected classes have always been deliberate attempts to squelch unpopular biases - to protect groups that have enough political clout to lobby for them successfully.

The problem with protected classes is actually more fundamental, again coming back to our lack of consensus on what a 'right' means in the first place.

If you create a special class and consider characteristics of that special class you don't apply to all, that's discrimination against those not having that characteristic applied.

If a male that thinks he's a woman goes into the women's restroom solely to urinate and nothing is done yet a male that knows he's a male goes into that same restroom solely to urinate and is arrested, that's special treatment.

 

[dblack]

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.

When there are things such as protected classes where (fill in the blank) characteristic is used or considered in the process, however slight it may be, that special because it applies only to certain ones not all equally.

Well, it can be argued (and it was the rationale of the Court) that banning discrimination based on certain characteristics can be applied equally. In theory, everyone's "right" to be protected from racial discrimination is protected by the Civil Rights Act. But in practice, protected classes have always been deliberate attempts to squelch unpopular biases - to protect groups that have enough political clout to lobby for them successfully.

The problem with protected classes is actually more fundamental, again coming back to our lack of consensus on what a 'right' means in the first place.

If you create a special class and consider characteristics of that special class you don't apply to all, that's discrimination against those not having that characteristic applied.

If a male that thinks he's a woman goes into the women's restroom solely to urinate and nothing is done yet a male that knows he's a male goes into that same restroom solely to urinate and is arrested, that's special treatment.

I'm not really sure what that's all about.

The bigger problem with protected classes logic is that it's based on the assumption that there is such a thing as a right to not be discriminated against, or that there should be.

 

[petro]

Bullshit. You answered nothing. Not to mention my support of the death penalty has nothing to do with color. I gave you a one up by supporting a white man put to death for killing blacks. My support for the same regarding white on white murder would obviously be the same. The persons color is irrelevant, it is the crime that should be punished. You and BLM are the ones fixated on color.

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

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

Tome.to move.on....people.need to.be United not trying to find scapegoats so a few people can make cash off of us.

who tries to do that? cheap capitalists?

Nope they just make shit and sell it.
Civil rights people make up shit and make money off of it.....

 

[flacaltenn]

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

We're going around the circle here. You just expressed very little interest in Civil Liberties issues that have IMMENSE importance to black americans. Because the "civil rights" label generally precludes MANY Civil Liberty issues.. I can draw you Venn diagram of American Civil Liberty issues, and shade the ones where black people are disproportionately targeted. And BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS scope of interest, they would not be included.

Simple man. There are MILLIONS more serious minded people that would join and march in mutual causes -- if the black community opened up and showed similar anger about EVERYONE's Civil Liberties. And not just "their Right" as a "race"..

 

[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

No point in you trying to lie about me son, I'll just smile at you. I have neither seen your post nor defined anything. What are you afraid of?

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

Only Libs would refuse a requirement that a voter be a US citizen to vote in US elections and then complain about foreigners interfering in US elections.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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?

How They Establish a Half-Truth "Heads I Win; Tails, It's a Tie"

It's time to reverse it. You pose a leading question if you don't include "We've done too much."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

Make the Nobility Have No Ability

Outlaw birth privileges then. That will disable the powerful clique that sponsors minorities, attacking the majority from both ends.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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 think all the recent evidence is that there IS oppression. Not so much race based as class based. If you read the Federal report on Ferguson for instance you'll find the MAIN source of oppression is a local govt that had an average of 3 outstanding warrants and 1.5 arrests per household. A system where MOST of those warrants were garbage or clerical errors. A system where someone TRYING to pay off a fine in installments had their money returned and their asses thrown in jail. .

There is a CLEAR pattern of oppression from muni govts that try to run by the SAME rules as wealthier towns or suburbs. And the irony of all that is of course -- that these victims just love them some MORE big muscular govt with piss poor "customer service" and lack of innovation.. And they VOTE that way -- all the ******* time.

That "innovation" has to come from recognizing that problems that LOOK like "racial oppression" are often clearly --- something else entirely.. And it has to come from folks that THINK emancipated and better represented.

Then it IS race based, but this race in this location (as in most) happens to be locked in an endless chain of poverty and crime.

Wilson was lunatic when he emptied his pistol into Brown however.

I can't believe he thought he would get away with this. It has cost him his police career. He is lucky it did not cost him more.

You're missing the larger picture of despair and anger that CREATES anti-law attitudes in those communities. And that is what I was addressing. Ferguson ran their entire "justice system" incompetently and arrogantly. And that problem was NOT "race based".. It's a failure of government that plagues MOST working poor communities in the US. NOT ---- just the black ones. You "cop to" Brown's attitude that got him killed after a LIFETIME of being abused and oppressed by an incompetent justice system. And seeing that abuse eat away at lives in the community. But it's NOT racism.. That's why the SAME attitudes against the justice system prevail in BLACK RUN cities and towns.

In America, Blacks Have Never Been Treated Worse Than They Deserve

You belong to a cult of Bell Curve deniers.

 

[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

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.

When you say "some" , what you really mean is yourself. I sure don't mean anything other than the dictionary definition.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

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

What do those crazy kids have to do with the civil rights movement?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

Make the Nobility Have No Ability

Outlaw birth privileges then. That will disable the powerful clique that sponsors minorities, attacking the majority from both ends.

What birth privileges?