Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[JQPublic1]

They are fighting to KEEP the rights they already have. Things ranging from voter suppression to being forced to live in toxic areas of a city marks the disdain for civil rights heaped upon non Whites by White governance.

I agree, Democrats in the 60's, 70's and 80's packing minorities like sardines in deserted areas away from whites was a national disgrace. Many blacks are still suffering from it.

The actions of which you speak was a bipartisan quid pro quo effort to maintain the status quo... That attitude persists across party lines.

 

[JQPublic1]

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 many minorities have stopped believing in attaining full Civil Rights. The promise of civil rights is like a beautiful apparition that you can almost touch but evaporates the moment you reach for it.

And legislation like Affirmative Action keep equal rights a distant hope

AA was meant to be an equalizer... a tool for giving qualified minorities and women, including White women, the chance to assimilate through equal opportunity. White women benefited most . So what is your gripe? Without AA , millions of white males would be struggling on a singe income.Now,thanks to AA, their wives can bring in as much or more money than THEY do. You ought to be overjoyed that AA was implemented.

Nope. No one should be overjoyed in the least for any gain that owes itself to the detriment of someone else.

But nice try to spin your way out of it and deflect the fact that minorities living in terrible areas is wholly due to liberal social engineering of past decades. Period.

Are you blind or just conscientiously stupid? Answer this question...please read it s-l-o-w-l-y.

Do most White households depend on two incomes to maintain the lavish American lifestyles of our middle class?
The answer is YES. That being so, the educated working White woman is contributing to the welfare of her White male mate by helping him and their children have a good life. Without AA that wouldn't have happened!

 

[JQPublic1]

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?

We need to enforce the law period. The amount of melanin in ones skin, or the slant of their eyes, has absolutely no bearing upon anything. If they break the law or cause a disturbance, arrest and prosecute them!

As long as the laws are enforced fairly without regard to one's race or ethnic background, I agree. Can you name such a place ...preferably one where diverse populations commingle?

Sure, Arizona, California, Colorado, and about 47 more!

HAHAHAHAHAH! I thought you'd say that... You joke, YOU JOKE! Great sense of humor... heh heh heh!

 

[JQPublic1]

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 many minorities have stopped believing in attaining full Civil Rights. The promise of civil rights is like a beautiful apparition that you can almost touch but evaporates the moment you reach for it.

And legislation like Affirmative Action keep equal rights a distant hope

AA was meant to be an equalizer... a tool for giving qualified minorities and women, including White women, the chance to assimilate through equal opportunity. White women benefited most . So what is your gripe? Without AA , millions of white males would be struggling on a singe income.Now,thanks to AA, their wives can bring in as much or more money than THEY do. You ought to be overjoyed that AA was implemented.

Nope. No one should be overjoyed in the least for any gain that owes itself to the detriment of someone else.

But nice try to spin your way out of it and deflect the fact that minorities living in terrible areas is wholly due to liberal social engineering of past decades. Period.

I had to give another response to this inane dribble:

Affirmative Action is no detriment to any on race when White women used it to get educated and to obtain good paying jobs.
Most married White men with good paying jobs. Do the math... Affirmative Acton benefits Whites MORE than it did/does Blacks

 

[g5000]

1) 80 percent illegitimacy rate, for starters. This is simply staggering. From this flows much poverty. And from poverty comes crime, drug abuse, depravity, and hopelessness.

2) Deriding success achieved outside the black community. The proverbial bucket of crabs. When one begins to climb out, the others pull him back into the bucket.

3) Choosing the wrong martyrs. A thug shot by the cops is not a hero. Michael Brown was a thug. He was not Emmitt Till.

4) Choosing the wrong leadership. Defending obvious criminals and bad actors in positions of power just because they are black. I realize this is not strictly a black thing. Far from it. But if you are in a disadvantageous position on an unlevel playing field, you do not have the luxury of choosing scumbags to be your mouthpiece. Whenever you re-elect a piece of shit like Marion Barry, or defend a crook like William J. Jefferson, you are communicating that's the best you can do. That is the wrong message. Not just the wrong message to the world, it is the wrong message to tell yourselves.

Numbers 1 and 4 are the two which break my heart the most.

Now we're getting somewhere.

1. So how do you think that tragic statistic came to be?

Through an appalling amount of irresponsible unprotected sex with multiple partners.

3. The example you're using was a rather recent one. I don't think our problems stem from stuff like that. Using that same example, the problem comes from the fact that cops are so willing to end black children's lives so easily, whereas a white kid doing the exact same thing would have met a much nicer fate.

I have said on this forum in the past that cell phones are finally validating what people have been saying about cops for decades. That does not take away from the fact that Michael Brown was a thug. Choose your battles carefully, or your protests are counterproductive.

Speaking of counterproductive, burning down neighborhoods and the shops of perfectly innocent businesses is incredibly counterproductive. Don't shit in your own nest!

4. Interesting. I'm curious to know who you think are wrong and who would you suggest as right.

There hasn't been any real quality leadership in the black community since MLK. Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young undid a lot of progress MLK achieved.

I like what I've seen from Booker, though.

 

[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?

I believe in CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ie, Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue happiness.

.

We had slavery under the Constitution. So stop evading the question with your sophomoric bullshit.

And the Constitution was amended to make slavery illegal so who is being sophomoric?

 

[jc456]

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 believe in CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ie, Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue happiness.

.

We had slavery under the Constitution. So stop evading the question with your sophomoric bullshit.

we still have slavery today. been to an inner city?

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

The call of 'special rights' has been raised by those opposing equal rights for as long as I can remember, and I'm sixty.

It seems that extending equality to all means an erosion of rights to a few. What specific 'special rights' do you speak of? the right to own property? The right to vote? The right to run for elective office?

Because those rights and none other are addressed by the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

What if fairness penalized one class more than others? would you still be in favor of fairness?

Example, please.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

1) 80 percent illegitimacy rate, for starters. This is simply staggering. From this flows much poverty. And from poverty comes crime, drug abuse, depravity, and hopelessness.

2) Deriding success achieved outside the black community. The proverbial bucket of crabs. When one begins to climb out, the others pull him back into the bucket.

3) Choosing the wrong martyrs. A thug shot by the cops is not a hero. Michael Brown was a thug. He was not Emmitt Till.

4) Choosing the wrong leadership. Defending obvious criminals and bad actors in positions of power just because they are black. I realize this is not strictly a black thing. Far from it. But if you are in a disadvantageous position on an unlevel playing field, you do not have the luxury of choosing scumbags to be your mouthpiece. Whenever you re-elect a piece of shit like Marion Barry, or defend a crook like William J. Jefferson, you are communicating that's the best you can do. That is the wrong message. Not just the wrong message to the world, it is the wrong message to tell yourselves.

Numbers 1 and 4 are the two which break my heart the most.

Now we're getting somewhere.

1. So how do you think that tragic statistic came to be?

Through an appalling amount of irresponsible unprotected sex with multiple partners.

3. The example you're using was a rather recent one. I don't think our problems stem from stuff like that. Using that same example, the problem comes from the fact that cops are so willing to end black children's lives so easily, whereas a white kid doing the exact same thing would have met a much nicer fate.

I have said on this forum in the past that cell phones are finally validating what people have been saying about cops for decades. That does not take away from the fact that Michael Brown was a thug. Choose your battles carefully, or your protests are counterproductive.

Speaking of counterproductive, burning down neighborhoods and the shops of perfectly innocent businesses is incredibly counterproductive. Don't shit in your own nest!

4. Interesting. I'm curious to know who you think are wrong and who would you suggest as right.

There hasn't been any real quality leadership in the black community since MLK. Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young undid a lot of progress MLK achieved.

I like what I've seen from Booker, though.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

They are fighting to KEEP the rights they already have. Things ranging from voter suppression to being forced to live in toxic areas of a city marks the disdain for civil rights heaped upon non Whites by White governance.

I agree, Democrats in the 60's, 70's and 80's packing minorities like sardines in deserted areas away from whites was a national disgrace. Many blacks are still suffering from it.

The actions of which you speak was a bipartisan quid pro quo effort to maintain the status quo... That attitude persists across party lines.

Nope. You can keep saying it, but just isn't true.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

What if fairness penalized one class more than others? would you still be in favor of fairness?

Example, please.

Really it was just a lie detector type question to see if you were being honest or ideological, your answer is ideological but since you ask:
Say there is a much higher crime rate in poor ethnic areas than in better to do areas of a different ethnicity, in the name of fairness and equality under the law which area would have more folks in prison?...in your definition or perception of fairness and equality under the law

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

What if fairness penalized one class more than others? would you still be in favor of fairness?

Example, please.

Really it was just a lie detector type question to see if you were being honest or ideological, your answer is ideological but since you ask:
Say there is a much higher crime rate in poor ethnic areas than in better to do areas of a different ethnicity, in the name of fairness and equality under the law which area would have more folks in prison?...in your definition or perception of fairness and equality under the law

My answer is realistic and practical, and not at all ideological.

Your example is irrelevant. Equality before the law is just that. That one arbitrarily-named group or another commits more crime does not grant them "extra fairness".

 

[2aguy]

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 always have to be guarded.

 

[2aguy]

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 believe in CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ie, Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue happiness.

.

We had slavery under the Constitution. So stop evading the question with your sophomoric bullshit.

No.....the Constitution ended slavery.......then the Republicans had to shoot a lot of democrats to make them free their slaves.

 

[Kosh]

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 far left does not even know they are, they just spout far left religious dogma not connected to reality..

If you did believe in civil rights you would not cheer cops being shot and killed!

 

[Kosh]

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 believe in CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ie, Life, Liberty, Property and to pursue happiness.

.

We had slavery under the Constitution. So stop evading the question with your sophomoric bullshit.

No.....the Constitution ended slavery.......then the Republicans had to shoot a lot of democrats to make them free their slaves.

The far left uses political slavery to hold on to their power!

 

[oldfart]

The Second Amendment is a Civil Right.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

What if fairness penalized one class more than others? would you still be in favor of fairness?

Example, please.

Really it was just a lie detector type question to see if you were being honest or ideological, your answer is ideological but since you ask:
Say there is a much higher crime rate in poor ethnic areas than in better to do areas of a different ethnicity, in the name of fairness and equality under the law which area would have more folks in prison?...in your definition or perception of fairness and equality under the law

My answer is realistic and practical, and not at all ideological.

REALLY??? Your answer to the question was "EXAMPLE PLEASE"...

Your example is irrelevant. Equality before the law is just that. That one arbitrarily-named group or another commits more crime does not grant them "extra fairness".

the fact that you think you answered the question you were asked when you answered one that you wish was asked is what determines/defines it as ideological...it was a question that could have been answered with a simple "yes" or "no" without ideology...you've gone from asking for an example to avoid answering the question then claiming the example as irrelevant because you can't answer the question...And even if irrelevant to you, see if you can answer the original question yes or no...make sure you re-read it....remember it is about being fair

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

the fact that you think you answered the question you were asked when you answered one that you wish was asked is what determines/defines it as ideological...it was a question that could have been answered with a simple "yes" or "no" without ideology...you've gone from asking for an example to avoid answering the question then claiming the example as irrelevant because you can't answer the question...And even if irrelevant to you, see if you can answer the original question yes or no...make sure you re-read it....remember it is about being fair

Your original question intimated that fairness could somehow penalize one group over another, which is non-sequitur. I asked for an example, and you provided one that leaned toward intimating that groups under dissimilar circumstances could not be treated with fairness.