Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[Skull Pilot]

Every day people are being arrested for exercising their right to bear arms, so obviously we haven't done enough. And it's not just about guns, people are getting busted for pocket knives fer crissakes.

You're equating civil rights w/the right to bare arms. They are separate rights.

Actually the right to bare anything is an individual right.

I'm all for baring of lot's of things

 

[Polishprince]

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 civil rights issue we really need to deal with today is the basic, God given, right to keep and bear arms.

Numerous businesses and other facilities ban gun-owners from doing business there, I'd love to see a new Civil Rights Act to extend equal rights to those who are packing heat.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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 civil rights issue we really need to deal with today is the basic, God given, right to keep and bear arms.

Numerous businesses and other facilities ban gun-owners from doing business there, I'd love to see a new Civil Rights Act to extend equal rights to those who are packing heat.

A private property owner has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do on his property.

Only the government is barred from violating your rights.

For example you have no first amendment protection at your place of employment

 

[beautress]

Not for someone who has to feed his family on a deer who can't afford $5.98. a pound for lean beef hamburger. Lots of US people in that paradigm, Mr. MarcATL.

Actually it is. Your story doesn't change a thing.

FTR, I believe all rights are important.

My short and possibly curt statement was not much of a story, Mr. McATL. Unfortunately, I have a day of work ahead of me. I'm glad you believe citizen rights are important. I'm sorry I'm such a stick-in-the-mud for agreeing with the Founders, whose experience with uncaring leadership was so disenchanting that they risked life, limb, and bare feet in a northeast winter at Valley Forge to fight for self-governance under a Constitution that meant the world to a continent of people who were considered the discards of not only Europe, but Asia and Africa as well.

 

[Polishprince]

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 civil rights issue we really need to deal with today is the basic, God given, right to keep and bear arms.

Numerous businesses and other facilities ban gun-owners from doing business there, I'd love to see a new Civil Rights Act to extend equal rights to those who are packing heat.

A private property owner has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do on his property.

Only the government is barred from violation of your rights.

For example you have no first amendment protection at your place of employment

I know that's the current law, property owners have rights, yada yada yada.

However, Civil Rights laws can be, and have been, established to protect certain classes including Homosexuals and trannies. The question is whether to expand the protected classes to include gun owners.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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 civil rights issue we really need to deal with today is the basic, God given, right to keep and bear arms.

Numerous businesses and other facilities ban gun-owners from doing business there, I'd love to see a new Civil Rights Act to extend equal rights to those who are packing heat.

A private property owner has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do on his property.

Only the government is barred from violation of your rights.

For example you have no first amendment protection at your place of employment

I know that's the current law, property owners have rights, yada yada yada.

However, Civil Rights laws can be, and have been, established to protect certain classes including Homosexuals and trannies. The question is whether to expand the protected classes to include gun owners.

When individual rights are paramount there is no need for civil rights.

The Bill of Rights only protects from the government violating your rights

 

[pismoe]

Every day people are being arrested for exercising their right to bear arms, so obviously we haven't done enough. And it's not just about guns, people are getting busted for pocket knives fer crissakes.

You're equating civil rights w/the right to bare arms. They are separate rights.

------------------------------------------ sure they are separate . The 2nd is recognized as a REAL RIGHT that existed Forever and Existed even before the Constitution was written . The 2nd is really about self defense and the need to defend against possible tyranny with the best tools available . ------------------------------------- All the Civil rights are simply made up by men and government and actually in many cases they take away freedoms like Freedom of Association or the RIGHT to control a persons Private Property and businesses like rental housing and cake shops Marc .

 

[Dragonlady]

Because it is time to take away special rights given to classes of people just because of their color, to be productive, and to be REALLY JUST all people should be graded, and measured by the same standards and given just what they have earned, no special programs, no special extra points, and no preference to meet any quota. Equality in all factors is what the CONSTITUTION REQUIRES. No equality of outcome without equality of input. No equality of assets by redistribution. No equality of anything by government intervention. That is real civil rights. Our fight is for REAL rights NOT implied rights for chosen classes.

Having everyone treated equally would be the ideal outcome. But the reality is that this is not happening. White men are already SCREAMING about the loss of their privilege. They are complaints that the children of alumni, who donate and support their schools SHOULD go to the head of the line to get into top schools. Fully 1/3 of student admissions go to the unqualified children of alumni

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

The problem is the "equality under the law" looks like "favouritism" to whiny white men.

By every measure that has ever been taken, white men get preference in jobs, post secondary school admittance, and in the criminal justice system. Just the idea of ensuring that more people of colour get into university drives people like you to cries of "racism". But nary a word from you about thre 1/3 of students who are given admittance simply because their parents are alumni.

Your "equality for all", is what we're going for here, but it means we have to dismantle a system when young white men, get suspended sentences for the same crimes, in the same circumstances where young men of colour are sent to jail. So are you going to start jailing the young white men too? Or are you going to let the young men of colour off?

As for job placements, a recent study sent out job resumes to HR departments with WASP sounding names, and then sent the same resumes out with black or hispanic names. The white resumes received far more interview requests than the minority resumes. How can minorities achieve fair employment when they can't even get an interview. Do we need a process where resumes are stripped of names and addresses and assigned numbers with HR people calling in people for interviews without knowing the race or sex of the applicant?

So much of achieving great success in life is who you know. The connections you make. Dropping the right name can open doors. But you have to get in the door to start making those connections. The "extra points" you decry are levelling the playing field. They're getting the poor minorities in the door, in the same way that legacy admittances are getting the less qualified offspring of alumni "extra points" in their admissions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Because it is time to take away special rights given to classes of people just because of their color, to be productive, and to be REALLY JUST all people should be graded, and measured by the same standards and given just what they have earned, no special programs, no special extra points, and no preference to meet any quota. Equality in all factors is what the CONSTITUTION REQUIRES. No equality of outcome without equality of input. No equality of assets by redistribution. No equality of anything by government intervention. That is real civil rights. Our fight is for REAL rights NOT implied rights for chosen classes.

Having everyone treated equally would be the ideal outcome. But the reality is that this is not happening. White men are already SCREAMING about the loss of their privilege. They are complaints that the children of alumni, who donate and support their schools SHOULD go to the head of the line to get into top schools. Fully 1/3 of student admissions go to the unqualified children of alumni

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

The problem is the "equality under the law" looks like "favouritism" to whiny white men.

By every measure that has ever been taken, white men get preference in jobs, post secondary school admittance, and in the criminal justice system. Just the idea of ensuring that more people of colour get into university drives people like you to cries of "racism". But nary a word from you about thre 1/3 of students who are given admittance simply because their parents are alumni.

Your "equality for all", is what we're going for here, but it means we have to dismantle a system when young white men, get suspended sentences for the same crimes, in the same circumstances where young men of colour are sent to jail. So are you going to start jailing the young white men too? Or are you going to let the young men of colour off?

As for job placements, a recent study sent out job resumes to HR departments with WASP sounding names, and then sent the same resumes out with black or hispanic names. The white resumes received far more interview requests than the minority resumes. How can minorities achieve fair employment when they can't even get an interview. Do we need a process where resumes are stripped of names and addresses and assigned numbers with HR people calling in people for interviews without knowing the race or sex of the applicant?

So much of achieving great success in life is who you know. The connections you make. Dropping the right name can open doors. But you have to get in the door to start making those connections. The "extra points" you decry are levelling the playing field. They're getting the poor minorities in the door, in the same way that legacy admittances are getting the less qualified offspring of alumni "extra points" in their admissions.

A school can admit anyone they want.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Racist Democratic Party lost its credibility on Civil Rights when they went all the way to the US Supreme Court several times to prevent White people from being hired, promoted are admitted into college based upon their race.

 

[2aguy]

as long as conservatives infest the country we will ALWAYS be fighting for civil rights.

The conservatives gave us Civil Rights...it was democrats who fought against all but the last two......and they only did that because kkk member Lyndon Johnson knew they couldn't win elections without the Black vote...

So why is the Republican party REPRESSING the black vote today?[/QUOTE]


They are not suppressing the black vote today. Voter I.D. keeps people who are not allowed to vote from voting.....making sure the voting rolls are up to date is not suppressing the vote.

 

[sparky]

I believe every individual has a personal responsibility to be civil , which collectively creates civilization

you see, the concept of civil rights is all fine & well, yet applying it via government bureaucracy makes as much sense as an azzhole w/taste buds....

~S~

So you don't believe that what Lincoln did was right, correct?

More i don't believe governance itself & alone can provide society human decency and morality , because it is incapable of policing it Marc

~S~

 

[beautress]

And excellent example of one of the deepest fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals.


Conservatives believe that it is the duty of the government to protect our god given rights.


Liberals believe that the government gives us our rights.


And that is why no liberal should EVERY be allowed to be a judge.

Conservatives are THEE biggest violators of civil rights both historically, and world-wide.

That makes what you're stating total hogwash.

(Marc) ~ Conservatives are THEE biggest violators of civil rights both historically, and world-wide. That makes what you're stating total hogwash​

It was Republicans who elected an anti slavery President to the executive office in 1860. (Abraham Lincoln, 1st Republican President)
It was Republicans who fought and died for freeing the slaves from around 1861-1865.
It was Republicans who passed legislation forbidding slavery against hateful and prejudiced Democrats in Congress.
It was Republicans who passed legislation giving black folks suffrage against outraged Democrats one and all.
It was Republicans who allowed the first state into the Union who held back from joining the Union over equality at the polls when initially, the rest of the Democrat Congress didn't want any females voting. Then after rigorous debates Republicans pushed through the acceptance of the new state, Wyoming, 1890, aka "The Equality State."
It was Republicans who passed legislation giving women suffrage for all American citizens in the first quarter of the twentieth century against a backlash from, you guessed, the stubborn as donkeys Democrats in Congress, who played stupid about women being equal partners in marriages, education, religion, and politics.
It was Ike Eisenhower, Republican President, who desegregated public schools in or around 1954, at Little Rock, Arkansas.
It was Republican who forced the Democrats to stop legislating low expectations from blacks in both literacy and educational betterment, in political aims, in property ownership and care of assets (savings accounts), and in excellence in every way.
And yet, Democrats kept encouraging blacks to forget this and go for gubmint freebies and entitlements that did nothing to develop character and self-reliance.

And who did black people stand down and allow her to fugettaboutit (the Constitution separating powers) and harass a Republican Executive Office staff in early 2018? A Democrat Representative in Congress, of course, who'd fooled herself into the double to the rear march dementia of reckoning that since they often do the hard work of taking responsibility, they are less glib than liberals, who spend all their time demonizing anyone who works for a living, including picking the pockets of Republican workers while stuffing their own pockets with expensive gubmint grabs and entitlements with no concern for the national debt placing this nation in harms way of foreign traders baiting and switching nonstop against "dummies in America."

Take some responsibility, Mr. MarcATL. We Republicans do not expect accolades for the number of times we've helped your people whom you separate with low expectations to get ahead, but we don't deserve to be left out of history exclusively so you all can help yourselves to freebies rather than to work for them and feel good about not owing someone alms at the end of the day only when you are self-sufficient and not dependent on anybody. Whatever seems too easy probably is. And it doesn't matter what color your skin is to know and apprecia5te this.

Your fellow black people have a shot at excellence in all your endeavors now, thanks to Martin Luther King and the presidents he inspired long after he had been assassinated in 1968 by a Democrat named James Earl Ray who was sentenced to 99 years in Tennessee. In the meantime, John F. Kennedy opposed the Civil Rights Act, and Senator Al Gore, Sr, TN, voted against the same.

Republicans do not deserve censure from you or anybody else. We didn't throw money at problems, we instituted the same high expectations for blacks and whites as equals, not as second-class citizens. It's so easy to want something for nothing by raising the taxes on "all" workers, and beat down high expectations by trading your loyalty to shills who spent a hundred years following the Civil War in placating you by force, but who decided, after losing a few elections, they needed exactly the percentage of votes that your population represented, and they went about winning you over by promising you a candy jar, which you accepted in lieu of the hard work that self-sufficiency is.

Please stop smearing Republicans. We do not deserve it. We had your interests at heart when we went with equality. All else was just low expectations, a way to keep you in the hardest and lowest paying jobs in this civilization. We Republicans will never crater to unequal rights and entitlements. It's bad for you and it's bad for us. Republicans do not buy into that racial inferiority shit, and never did.

Just sayin'.

 

[playtime]

and you gave a couple of examples in your post number 455 Playtime .

the gov'ment can try - but can be challenged in court.

based on the constitution. now... if courts are stacked with dirty judges, then that opens up a whole world of hurt

------------------------------ WHOSE OPINION will be used to decide WHO the dirty 'judges' are Playtime ??

depends on the issue & the decision.

duh.

 

[playtime]

I think that 'civil rights' are simply Grants , Favors and Permissions ready to be revoked by 'goverment' at any time

actually the constitution is why there are civil rights.

And excellent example of one of the deepest fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals.


Conservatives believe that it is the duty of the government to protect our god given rights.


Liberals believe that the government gives us our rights.


And that is why no liberal should EVERY be allowed to be a judge.

-------------------------------------------- i think that Correll is correct in this post .

oh i understand....all you deplorables gotta stick together after all, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Should the Civil Rights Movement Continue in the USA”

Of course it should.

Unfortunately far too many conservatives and Republicans are currently seeking to violate the rights and protected liberties of the American people, or to take from the people the hard-fought recognition of their rights and protected liberties.

 

[Doc1]

“Should the Civil Rights Movement Continue in the USA”

Of course it should.

Unfortunately far too many conservatives and Republicans are currently seeking to violate the rights and protected liberties of the American people, or to take from the people the hard-fought recognition of their rights and protected liberties.

Not at all, hell we'll even pay for your picture id's.

 

[pismoe]

Because it is time to take away special rights given to classes of people just because of their color, to be productive, and to be REALLY JUST all people should be graded, and measured by the same standards and given just what they have earned, no special programs, no special extra points, and no preference to meet any quota. Equality in all factors is what the CONSTITUTION REQUIRES. No equality of outcome without equality of input. No equality of assets by redistribution. No equality of anything by government intervention. That is real civil rights. Our fight is for REAL rights NOT implied rights for chosen classes.

Having everyone treated equally would be the ideal outcome. But the reality is that this is not happening. White men are already SCREAMING about the loss of their privilege. They are complaints that the children of alumni, who donate and support their schools SHOULD go to the head of the line to get into top schools. Fully 1/3 of student admissions go to the unqualified children of alumni

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

The problem is the "equality under the law" looks like "favouritism" to whiny white men.

By every measure that has ever been taken, white men get preference in jobs, post secondary school admittance, and in the criminal justice system. Just the idea of ensuring that more people of colour get into university drives people like you to cries of "racism". But nary a word from you about thre 1/3 of students who are given admittance simply because their parents are alumni.

Your "equality for all", is what we're going for here, but it means we have to dismantle a system when young white men, get suspended sentences for the same crimes, in the same circumstances where young men of colour are sent to jail. So are you going to start jailing the young white men too? Or are you going to let the young men of colour off?

As for job placements, a recent study sent out job resumes to HR departments with WASP sounding names, and then sent the same resumes out with black or hispanic names. The white resumes received far more interview requests than the minority resumes. How can minorities achieve fair employment when they can't even get an interview. Do we need a process where resumes are stripped of names and addresses and assigned numbers with HR people calling in people for interviews without knowing the race or sex of the applicant?

So much of achieving great success in life is who you know. The connections you make. Dropping the right name can open doors. But you have to get in the door to start making those connections. The "extra points" you decry are levelling the playing field. They're getting the poor minorities in the door, in the same way that legacy admittances are getting the less qualified offspring of alumni "extra points" in their admissions.

----------------------------------- only your 'hateful words' and no links to your claims DLady .

 

[Andylusion]

I think we need to fight for our constitutional rights. There are no real civil rights. There are only constitutional rights.

Today, the 'civil rights movement' is largely an attempt to take away rights, not grant them.

For example, you do not have a 'right' to my services. My business is my property, and I have the constitutional right to do with my property as I please.

You do not have a right to my business. So a civil right that tells me I can't do with my property as I please, isn't protecting the rights of someone else.... they don't have a right to someone's business.... instead all it is, is an attempt to take away rights from others.

Therefore, no we do not need to fight for civil rights.

 

[MarcATL]

I believe every individual has a personal responsibility to be civil , which collectively creates civilization

you see, the concept of civil rights is all fine & well, yet applying it via government bureaucracy makes as much sense as an azzhole w/taste buds....

~S~

So you don't believe that what Lincoln did was right, correct?

More i don't believe governance itself & alone can provide society human decency and morality , because it is incapable of policing it Marc

~S~

So what's your solution then sparky?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk