Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[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.

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

When I say some, I mean morons like you that support the concept of protected classes.

You say you don't mean anything but the dictionary definition but if you support the concept of protected classes, you lie.

 

[Alex.]

civil rights yes move on .....no

Yes, civil rights are great as long as no one except for white christian males asks for them.

You are truly warped Chicken Legs.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

You're conflating rights by calling them civil rights. You really mean religious rights.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Civil rights means having political/social freedom and equality. If certain groups are given protected class status, that's not social equality. That puts certain groups higher than others.

 

[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.

What rights are they getting that you're not?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

To have their race considered in hiring. I don't have that. That's OK. I have the luxury of knowing that what I have in the way of employment, I earned. Those where AA is applies should realize that they aren't up to my level.

 

[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?

Whirled Wad of Wub

Quit pretending you don't know, preppylover! I'm wise to that Netwit trick.

Yes, the old "Can you clarify your disordered thinking for us rational people" gambit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

Civil rights is not what you nor the left promote.

Civil rights includes the freedom OF religion, the freedom OF speech, freedom of the press.

You of the left seek to crush freedom of religion, as Obama did with the Hobby Lobby Case and Little Sisters of the Poor. Yes, he was slapped down by the SCOTUS, but in democrat fashion he did his best to end this civil right.

Freedom of speech is gone, and needs to be restored. The leftists have outlawed any and all speech they find "offensive." The subjects in the realm must take care with every word lest they run afoul of the strict speech restrictions in place.

And of course the Obama regime ended a free press;

{
“A real freeze is setting in on what had been to this point, I think, a healthy discourse between sources and journalists,” she said. “Journalists are saying, ‘I will go to jail to protect your identity.... These words are now being uttered.”

Also with Abramson at the conference was Janine Gibson, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, the website Snowden leaked documents to that exposed the NSA surveillance. Abramson pointed out that the Obama administration has administered seven leak investigations to date, which is twice that of any other previous administration, according to the Wrap.

“The original, the ordinary way of chilling journalism won’t work,” she said. “We’re not any more going to be worried about naming names. It’s going to be about proving that you’re not a co-conspirator.”
}

NY Times' Jill Abramson: Obama Crackdown Has Created 'Freeze' On Reporting | The Huffington Post

With Obama and the democrats out of power, civil liberties have a chance to return.

 

[Chuz Life]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What Madison said about the general welfare, also applies to the common defense.

idiot!! they are not related
Show me a Madison quote that relates them?

 

[dblack]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Nope. Otherwise, that would be the title of the thread. But it's not.

 

[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.

It's a solution in search of a problem. Aka the problem doesn't exist.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

People are in jail for voter fraud so it's idiotic to argue that it's not a problem. I have the right to expect my vote to count as much as anyone's and not be nullified by fraudulent votes. That is one of my civil rights. Opposing voter ID is anti-civil rights and pro-crime. Simply no way around it.

 

[Chuz Life]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Nope. Otherwise, that would be the title of the thread. But it's not.

It is actually hilarious (and a bit disturbing) to consider that anyone would claim to be supportive of Civil rights and also be completely indifferent to when and how those rights begin.

 

[MarcATL]

Today's so-called "civil rights movement."

Sez who?

 

[MarcATL]

The 210 point bonus blacks get for having black skin in ivy league college admissions is a fine example.

Not that it is credible that you have not heard these arguments before.

And this affects you greatly and aversly (sp). Is that what your argument is?

 

[MarcATL]

When I say some, I mean morons like you that support the concept of protected classes.

You say you don't mean anything but the dictionary definition but if you support the concept of protected classes, you lie.

As usual, you're just making crap up.

Evidence of a weak argument.

 

[MarcATL]

Civil rights means having political/social freedom and equality. If certain groups are given protected class status, that's not social equality. That puts certain groups higher than others.

According to you, which group/s have been given "protected class" status?

 

[MarcATL]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Please follow it through and expound upon the point you're trying to make.

Thanks.

 

[MarcATL]

People are in jail for voter fraud so it's idiotic to argue that it's not a problem. I have the right to expect my vote to count as much as anyone's and not be nullified by fraudulent votes. That is one of my civil rights. Opposing voter ID is anti-civil rights and pro-crime. Simply no way around it.

Link?

 

[Chuz Life]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Please follow it through and expound upon the point you're trying to make.

Thanks.

My point is all the talk about "civil rights" is nothing more than talk - if any one (or more) groups of human beings can be rejected, disqualified, or are viewed as fair game for violating.

Agree?

 

[MarcATL]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Please follow it through and expound upon the point you're trying to make.

Thanks.

My point is all the talk about "civil rights" is nothing more than talk - if any one (or more) groups of human beings can be rejected, disqualified, or are viewed as fair game for violating.

Agree?

No, because the group/s who are rejected, should have the same civil rights as all the rest, and should be fighting for them.

That's the whole point of the OP, equality for all.

 

[Chuz Life]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Please follow it through and expound upon the point you're trying to make.

Thanks.

My point is all the talk about "civil rights" is nothing more than talk - if any one (or more) groups of human beings can be rejected, disqualified, or are viewed as fair game for violating.

Agree?

No, because the group/s who are rejected, should have the same civil rights as all the rest, and should be fighting for them.

That's the whole point of the OP, equality for all.

What about those who are too young and or too frail to fight for themselves?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app