Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[Kosh]

I voted 'Not Really"

I vote this way because I absolutely 100% believe that there should be no bias whatsoever when to comes to all things government. Equal voting, equal public services, equal everything. Government should be blind to anything other than citizenship.

However, I hold private property sacrosanct. I therefore do not believe the federal government has the right, nor the Constitutional power, to tell a shop owner who they should serve. Personally, I would gladly protest the racist shop owner with you, but we're talking about the federal government. I would stand against titles in the '64 law that allow the feds to meddling in property and private contracts, including employment.

We need more freedom, not more meddling. You do not need more rules, enforced by armed government agents. You need more jobs. That, we can work on.

Do you agree with the law that prohibits individuals from screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded place where there is no fire?

Why/why not?

Another far left debunked analogy being used!

Yes they can do that, just they will pay price for doing so!

More far left propaganda to avoid the fact the Op cheers for dead cops!

 

[Kosh]

Seriously? You have just proven that you do not understand what civil rights are beyond far left religious dogma!

Even cops get civil rights except for cop haters like you!

Your Honor, let it be noted that when the subject was given the opportunity to present its case that the subject was either unable or unwilling to do so.

This is not a court of law!

And you have cheered for dead cops!

Your honor notice how the OP does not deny it!

See they believe that cops do not have civil rights!

 

[JQPublic1]

I believe in equal rights. Somehow Civil Rights has come to mean (to some) special treatment for some. That's what actual civil rights was intended to stop.

Lets look at that! Are you familiar with the "Separate but Equal doctrine?" As an outcome of the 1896 Plessy vs Ferguson decision, American segregation began whereas public accommodations for Blacks and Whites would be separate but equal. Of course we know the end results of that unfortunate history. Separate drinking fountains, separate restrooms, and separate seating on busses and trains. The drinking fountains and restrooms might have been equal but being forced to sit in the back of a bus wasn't equal. However, the greatest inequality was manifested in the education system. Black had Civil Rights but they did NOT have Equal rights.

Now, since you are an advocate of equal right. allow me to place you in another time period...at a time when Blacks were just emerging from 60 years of apartheid to compete in a hostile White world without benefit of education or middle class job skill. What would you have done differently that would have had a better outcome for Blacks than Affirmative Action considering the racial environment in 196o onwards.

 

[Contumacious]

I believe in equal rights. Somehow Civil Rights has come to mean (to some) special treatment for some. That's what actual civil rights was intended to stop.

Lets look at that! Are you familiar with the "Separate but Equal doctrine?" As an outcome of the 1896 Plessy vs Ferguson decision, American segregation began whereas public accommodations for Blacks and Whites would be separate but equal. Of course we know the end results of that unfortunate history. Separate drinking fountains, separate restrooms, and separate seating on busses and trains. The drinking fountains and restrooms might have been equal but being forced to sit in the back of a bus wasn't equal. However, the greatest inequality was manifested in the education system. Black had Civil Rights but they did NOT have Equal rights.

Now, since you are an advocate of equal right. allow me to place you in another time period...at a time when Blacks were just emerging from 60 years of apartheid to compete in a hostile White world without benefit of education or middle class job skill. What would you have done differently that would have had a better outcome for Blacks than Affirmative Action considering the racial environment in 196o onwards.

Firstly, I can tell by your signature that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground?

Was the Constitution amended to pay for reparations or grant privileges?

Should the government force "A" to pay for what "B" - a slave owner - did?

/

 

[JQPublic1]

I believe in equal rights. Somehow Civil Rights has come to mean (to some) special treatment for some. That's what actual civil rights was intended to stop.

Lets look at that! Are you familiar with the "Separate but Equal doctrine?" As an outcome of the 1896 Plessy vs Ferguson decision, American segregation began whereas public accommodations for Blacks and Whites would be separate but equal. Of course we know the end results of that unfortunate history. Separate drinking fountains, separate restrooms, and separate seating on busses and trains. The drinking fountains and restrooms might have been equal but being forced to sit in the back of a bus wasn't equal. However, the greatest inequality was manifested in the education system. Black had Civil Rights but they did NOT have Equal rights.

Now, since you are an advocate of equal right. allow me to place you in another time period...at a time when Blacks were just emerging from 60 years of apartheid to compete in a hostile White world without benefit of education or middle class job skill. What would you have done differently that would have had a better outcome for Blacks than Affirmative Action considering the racial environment in 196o onwards.

Firstly, I can tell by your signature that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground?

Was the Constitution amended to pay for reparations or grant privileges?

Should the government force "A" to pay for what "B" - a slave owner - did?

/

Your opinion was noted and discarded just as quickly. If you are responding to post #123 please extend me the courtesy of answering the question therein before pressing me to answer yours.

 

[Mac1958]

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 is your definition of "civil rights"?

Don't worry about what I think, just answer it based on what YOU know it the definition to be. So start by giving your definition.

Well, rather than dive into the pool of traditional simplistic platitudes like "equality" and "diversity", I'll go with what immediately popped into my little brain when I saw your very reasonable and interesting question: Yes, it's far past time we stopped screaming at each other over "civil rights" because that issue has run its course. Rights and laws exist; rights and laws are not the issue; culture is, society is.

The problem now, as I see it anyway, is that we're still screaming and pointing the finger, and no one is looking in the mirror. How can I judge you if I haven't cleaned my own house first?

There are people on one side who want to pretend that traditional white-on-black racism DOESN'T STILL EXIST. How they can be conscious and functioning and not see it, is a study in the psychology of ideology. There are people on the other end who would much rather scream RACIST when someone dares to point out facts, than honestly examine and confront the counter-productive behaviors of minorities. Ultimately all these people are doing is ENABLING those behaviors and EXACERBATING divisions.

The conversation we need to have now isn't about rights and laws, it's about cleaning your own house before throwing stones (I do love mixed metaphors). I no longer believe the people screaming the loudest are really trying to actually improve ANYTHING, and I mean that literally. They're not trying to IMPROVE, they're trying to PUNISH. And that goes for other issues, as well.
.

 

[owebo]

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?

Democrats have eroded civil rights....they will be restored as we reduce the size of democrats leviathan.....

 

[dblack]

It think the debate over how to approach civil rights can be understood by contrasting two claims:

1. Everyone should have equal rights under the law.

vs.

2. Everyone should be treated equally.

Or, to rephrase slightly:

1. Everyone should be treated equally by government.

vs.

2. Everyone should be treated equally by everyone else.

 

[Disir]

I believe in equal rights. Somehow Civil Rights has come to mean (to some) special treatment for some. That's what actual civil rights was intended to stop.

Lets look at that! Are you familiar with the "Separate but Equal doctrine?" As an outcome of the 1896 Plessy vs Ferguson decision, American segregation began whereas public accommodations for Blacks and Whites would be separate but equal. Of course we know the end results of that unfortunate history. Separate drinking fountains, separate restrooms, and separate seating on busses and trains. The drinking fountains and restrooms might have been equal but being forced to sit in the back of a bus wasn't equal. However, the greatest inequality was manifested in the education system. Black had Civil Rights but they did NOT have Equal rights.

Now, since you are an advocate of equal right. allow me to place you in another time period...at a time when Blacks were just emerging from 60 years of apartheid to compete in a hostile White world without benefit of education or middle class job skill. What would you have done differently that would have had a better outcome for Blacks than Affirmative Action considering the racial environment in 196o onwards.

I would not have allowed immigrants to qualify for Affirmative Action policies. Why? Because it pushed out the native born group it was designed to help. Stop exploiting the native born African Americans and those injustices for your own political gain. The difference between the Civil Rights movement of the 40s, 50s and 60s (pushed by the African American middle class) is that everyone was united behind it in the communities. After the SC cases and after the laws, there was no reason simply because there is no monolithic thinking. And no one wants that anyway. So petty rivalries and rifts became obvious.

The original thinking was that integration=social mobility. The middle and upper class blacks looked at the 45% of blacks still living in poverty and said.......so now what?

This is where the Democrats attempting to portray themselves as leaders in maintaining civil rights fail.
U.S. Post Office Job Cuts Threaten Black Middle Class | The Huffington Post

This is ok because the Democrats approved. Maybe you can change IDs and run around yelling automation is the issue.

 

[eflatminor]

I voted 'Not Really"

I vote this way because I absolutely 100% believe that there should be no bias whatsoever when to comes to all things government. Equal voting, equal public services, equal everything. Government should be blind to anything other than citizenship.

However, I hold private property sacrosanct. I therefore do not believe the federal government has the right, nor the Constitutional power, to tell a shop owner who they should serve. Personally, I would gladly protest the racist shop owner with you, but we're talking about the federal government. I would stand against titles in the '64 law that allow the feds to meddling in property and private contracts, including employment.

We need more freedom, not more meddling. You do not need more rules, enforced by armed government agents. You need more jobs. That, we can work on.

Do you agree with the law that prohibits individuals from screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded place where there is no fire?

Why/why not?

I believe in laws that punish anyone that infringes on the rights of another such as taking what doesn't belong to them or by hurting someone unnecessarily. If your idiot in the theater does that, he should face prosecution. I do not believe in the leftist's notion of laws designed to prevent what they think 'might' happen.

Now what does this have to do with civil rights?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

like what, for example?

 

[danielpalos]

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

examples?

 

[danielpalos]

I simply believe that everyone should be treated equally

examples?

 

[danielpalos]

Why do so many of you equate civil rights with "doing something that only benefits black people?"

it didn't. why are you, "begging the question"?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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

examples?

Start with #103.

 

[Correll]

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?

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

 

[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?

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

It's shifted from a movement focused on equal rights under the law to one focused on equal treatment by society.

 

[Correll]

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?

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

It's shifted from a movement focused on equal rights under the law to one focused on equal treatment by society.

It is not equal treatment for blacks to get a 210 point sat bonus in college admissions. That is anti-white discrimination.

 

[Disir]

By 2004 Henry Louis Gates reported 40% of those admitted into Harvard using Affirmative Action were from affluent African countries either as immigrants or the children of immigrants from the same country and biracial students. That had been occurring for almost 10 years at that point.

There are things that need to be done but it is far more important to serve a party then the actual work involved.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing is welcome to post some actual examples, not just right wing fantasy.