For 8 years the right has been called racist.

[martybegan]

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

Swish, the air headed bimbo misses another point. If Marty owned a bake shop, I'm sure he'd happily sell cakes to blacks, gays, Muslims, even sluts like you. That wasn't his point. You really didn't grasp that, did you?

BTW, try to keep track, liberals are the ones who hate Jews

100% correct. My issue is with forcing morality on others, and doing it over a very trivial matter.

A person of color wanting a job is not a trivial matter.

Employment discrimination is another topic, one with actual economic impact, and is thus not trivial.

That being said, maybe some jobs can be based on race. Should a hip hop recording studio be forced to hire white people if it doesn't want to?

It's trivial to ban black people from your place of business? From renting your apartment? From going to a certain school?

All of the cases with the bakers/photographers involved not wanting to participate in a certain event, i.e. a gay wedding. none of them refused service because they were gay.

Housing denial is again an actual economic harm.

Denying attendance at a school is economic and political harm.

If you have to extend what I am saying into areas I am not arguing about, it shows the weakness of YOUR argument.

 

[martybegan]

The fact that you believe certain forms of racism should be legal does not change the fact that you are racist if you exercise that legal right.

And?

The topic of this thread is racism.

Yes, and the subtopic we are discussing is protecting other people's freedoms, even if you disagree with how they use them.

 

[james bond]

Ha ha. It never would have passed without MLK who voted Republican.

Stop this BS. The people who were instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement were Republicans.

""It's a movement that had its roots in the black community and in the Republican community," Ada Fisher, a Republican National committeewoman from North Carolina, who is African-American, told ABC News. "Most people don't talk about the fact that Martin Luther King was a Republican."

Furthermore, Fisher lamented that the commemoration events sought to merge racial equality issues with other fights.

"I was very disappointed when I saw parts of it on the TV, because this is not the same as gay rights and immigration rights - it's two different things," she said. "Where we mix these up it dilutes what people are trying to do."

For black Republicans, the merging of the civil rights community with a broader progressive or liberal agenda is a source of frustration.

Raising the minimum wage, which many Republican-leaning economists oppose; combating voter suppression, which many Republicans doesn't believe is happening; and addressing lingering tensions represented by the killing of the black teen Trayvon Martin were at the top of the agenda at Saturday's event.

Former Rep. Allen West, a black Republican from Florida, said at the commemoration luncheon today that the speakers at Saturday's rally all "missed the mark.""

Black GOPers Lament Forgotten Role in Civil Rights

In your misleading meme, MLK was referring to the Goldwater campaign. Goldwater was a strict Constitutionalist and Libertarian. He wasn't racist, but wanted civil rights to be voted by the states, not federal mandate. King voted Republican, but not for Goldwater. The smart and well-to-do blacks are in the Republican Party. Like MLK, they're the ones who really want blacks to get ahead in this country. Not Muslims like Obama.

 

[rightwinger]

If you disagree with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because you believe your business should have the right to refuse service to blacks,

you would be a racist, wouldn't you?

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

Those who oppose gay marriage would probably disagree with your interpretation of equal protection. I don't, except to point out that equal protection under the law ONLY applies to laws ... or government decisions to grant, or deny, some benefit or right.

Any law saying private individuals may not base decisions about with whom they contract on prejudices about skin color or something has to be based upon some other power given to the govt under the const. The civil rights laws applying to private citizens' behavior are generally based on the commerce clause.

What does baking a cake have to do with interstate commerce?

It doesn't

The baker in Oregon was being subjected to an Oregon State Law not a Federal Law

 

[jillian]

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

 

[james bond]

Would you consider it racist for one to choose to contract with blacks, but at the same time believe the const should not have allowed the gvot the power to punish individuals who chose not to contract with blacks? That was Goldwater's belief.

edit, that said, it was racist of Donnie Two Tone to ride the Birther in Chief mantle for attention for 8 years.

Was that a yes or a no?

It is "one can believe that the prohibitions on racial discrimination in private contracts should not have been constitutional, and one can still not be a racist."

It does not mean the gop can be absolved of the racist attacks against the potus that the gop chose not to condemn for the past 8 years.

If 'all men are created equal', and governments are formed to secure such rights as equality,

how does it get to be unconstitutional for the government of the United States to take as part of its prerogatives to secure the equal rights of minorities?

We have no disagreement that governments cannot treat citizens differently because of any irrelevant differences based on race, belief, sexual orientation or gender.

We do have a disagreement on whether the fed govt should have had the power to prevent any person of any race deciding that he/she didn't want to contract with another person because of their race ... or belief, sexual orientation or gender. That is a black person, or even a gay person, had the right to be boorish, just as a white person did. Accepting that the Founders did not intend to make it illegal for people to be boorish or prejudiced in their own private dealings does not make one racist. Rather, it means that one believes the Founders believed that when ideas were freely debated and left open to being tested, the majority would reach the right decision. And Wal-Mart and Kentucky Fried would do away with segregated businesses.

government has every right to make sure that we don't live with jim crow laws.

Hah. Do you know what you are talking about? What it means is we need to get rid of Al Gore Jr, Bill Clinton and his beotch as well as the rest of the KKK in the Democrat Party. Get rid of the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center that is all white. Talk about revisionist history on the part of the Dems here!

"In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born. By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems. These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation. Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous. However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states: They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.”

When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964. Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation. Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book Bamboozled:

“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag. It was our party’s flag. That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats. That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”

How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote? Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.

Nevertheless, deception—what all warfare is based on, according to ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, won’t work with independents. Obama’s reelection strategy of slander and defaming all conservatives and Republicans as racists won’t win him that all-important center.

With a “recovery” missing 8.5 million jobs, unemployment going in the wrong direction and no perceived end to our economic misery in sight, Obama obviously doesn’t see winning a second term without getting down in the gutter to inspire his bulwark leftists.

This latest attempt to stir up Obama’s base by former President Clinton is just the beginning. Digging up the ghost of Jim Crow Past may have worked before, but the political landscape has changed. And Americans are seemingly ready to vote their wallets in 2012.

This contest will be a battle between the Democrat Party of higher taxes, more spending and backbiting, and the Republican Party of lower taxes, job creation and solving America’s problems."

Democrats Should Know Jim Crow, They Created Him | Human Events

 

[Unkotare]

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

...

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

Like what?

 

[rightwinger]

Was that a yes or a no?

It is "one can believe that the prohibitions on racial discrimination in private contracts should not have been constitutional, and one can still not be a racist."

It does not mean the gop can be absolved of the racist attacks against the potus that the gop chose not to condemn for the past 8 years.

If 'all men are created equal', and governments are formed to secure such rights as equality,

how does it get to be unconstitutional for the government of the United States to take as part of its prerogatives to secure the equal rights of minorities?

We have no disagreement that governments cannot treat citizens differently because of any irrelevant differences based on race, belief, sexual orientation or gender.

We do have a disagreement on whether the fed govt should have had the power to prevent any person of any race deciding that he/she didn't want to contract with another person because of their race ... or belief, sexual orientation or gender. That is a black person, or even a gay person, had the right to be boorish, just as a white person did. Accepting that the Founders did not intend to make it illegal for people to be boorish or prejudiced in their own private dealings does not make one racist. Rather, it means that one believes the Founders believed that when ideas were freely debated and left open to being tested, the majority would reach the right decision. And Wal-Mart and Kentucky Fried would do away with segregated businesses.

government has every right to make sure that we don't live with jim crow laws.

Hah. Do you know what you are talking about? What it means is we need to get rid of Al Gore Jr, Bill Clinton and his beotch as well as the rest of the KKK in the Democrat Party. Get rid of the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center that is all white. Talk about revisionist history on the part of the Dems here!

"In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born. By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems. These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation. Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous. However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states: They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.”

When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964. Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation. Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book Bamboozled:

“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag. It was our party’s flag. That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats. That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”

How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote? Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.

Nevertheless, deception—what all warfare is based on, according to ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, won’t work with independents. Obama’s reelection strategy of slander and defaming all conservatives and Republicans as racists won’t win him that all-important center.

With a “recovery” missing 8.5 million jobs, unemployment going in the wrong direction and no perceived end to our economic misery in sight, Obama obviously doesn’t see winning a second term without getting down in the gutter to inspire his bulwark leftists.

This latest attempt to stir up Obama’s base by former President Clinton is just the beginning. Digging up the ghost of Jim Crow Past may have worked before, but the political landscape has changed. And Americans are seemingly ready to vote their wallets in 2012.

This contest will be a battle between the Democrat Party of higher taxes, more spending and backbiting, and the Republican Party of lower taxes, job creation and solving America’s problems."

Democrats Should Know Jim Crow, They Created Him | Human Events

Interesting observation from 50 years ago

But it is TODAYS Republicans fighting for the display of the Confederate Flag
TODAYS Republicans opposing affirmative action and voting rights
TODAYS Republicans fighting for States Rights

 

[kaz]

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

"you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to"

What the fuck does that mean?

 

[martybegan]

All the Constitution says is government cannot discriminate against blacks. It grants zero power to government to allow it to force citizens to not discriminate. Just like free speech. Government cannot prosecute you for your views. However, your employer can fire you for speaking them.

The whole idea that government can force citizens to deal with each other is an abomination to liberty. And the reality is it's virtually unnecessary. Businesses want customers. The color we care about is green.

I know, I know, but Jim Crow! Actually, Jim Crow, was government. Forcing citizens to not deal with each other was just as much an abomination to liberty as forcing us to deal with each other. Government should have no say

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

Where have I posted that I support abortion bans? My issue is that it isn't in the constitution, and is thus a State issue.

My views on abortion is limited to it being considered an elective procedure unless there is a health issue, and at least parental notification for anyone under 18 before they have one (with judicial outs of course, speedy ones at that).

And "without government" who is advocating for no government?

These days anyone doing that would probably go out of business pretty quickly. Now a sign that says "we cater to heterosexual weddings" would probably not be as bad in some locations, but probably not most.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

"you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to"

What the fuck does that mean?

its an abortion thing.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution explicitly gives citizens equal protection under the law.

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

Where have I posted that I support abortion bans? My issue is that it isn't in the constitution, and is thus a State issue.

My views on abortion is limited to it being considered an elective procedure unless there is a health issue, and at least parental notification for anyone under 18 before they have one (with judicial outs of course, speedy ones at that).

And "without government" who is advocating for no government?

These days anyone doing that would probably go out of business pretty quickly. Now a sign that says "we cater to heterosexual weddings" would probably not be as bad in some locations, but probably not most.

So the airhead thinks everyone who disagrees with her is a socon.

Abortion isn't in the Constitution, so it's a State issue. I think the States should make it legal though

 

[kaz]

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

"you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to"

What the fuck does that mean?

its an abortion thing.

Yes, I saw your reply and got it. I forget what simpletons liberals are thinking in such a black and white world that there are liberals and socons and nothing else

 

[martybegan]

What law says people are entitled to cake?

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

Where have I posted that I support abortion bans? My issue is that it isn't in the constitution, and is thus a State issue.

My views on abortion is limited to it being considered an elective procedure unless there is a health issue, and at least parental notification for anyone under 18 before they have one (with judicial outs of course, speedy ones at that).

And "without government" who is advocating for no government?

These days anyone doing that would probably go out of business pretty quickly. Now a sign that says "we cater to heterosexual weddings" would probably not be as bad in some locations, but probably not most.

So the airhead thinks everyone who disagrees with her is a socon.

Abortion isn't in the Constitution, so it's a State issue. I think the States should make it legal though

They have an easier time debating with the people with religious objections because of the scorn they feel for anyone with faith. I on the other hand respect people like that, as I am a lapsed Catholic at best. I also respect atheists who aren't assholes about it.

They have a harder time dealing directly with Strict Constructionists, and thus have to go find ulterior motives for our views.

 

[bendog]

It is "one can believe that the prohibitions on racial discrimination in private contracts should not have been constitutional, and one can still not be a racist."

It does not mean the gop can be absolved of the racist attacks against the potus that the gop chose not to condemn for the past 8 years.

If 'all men are created equal', and governments are formed to secure such rights as equality,

how does it get to be unconstitutional for the government of the United States to take as part of its prerogatives to secure the equal rights of minorities?

We have no disagreement that governments cannot treat citizens differently because of any irrelevant differences based on race, belief, sexual orientation or gender.

We do have a disagreement on whether the fed govt should have had the power to prevent any person of any race deciding that he/she didn't want to contract with another person because of their race ... or belief, sexual orientation or gender. That is a black person, or even a gay person, had the right to be boorish, just as a white person did. Accepting that the Founders did not intend to make it illegal for people to be boorish or prejudiced in their own private dealings does not make one racist. Rather, it means that one believes the Founders believed that when ideas were freely debated and left open to being tested, the majority would reach the right decision. And Wal-Mart and Kentucky Fried would do away with segregated businesses.

government has every right to make sure that we don't live with jim crow laws.

Hah. Do you know what you are talking about? What it means is we need to get rid of Al Gore Jr, Bill Clinton and his beotch as well as the rest of the KKK in the Democrat Party. Get rid of the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center that is all white. Talk about revisionist history on the part of the Dems here!

"In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born. By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems. These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation. Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous. However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states: They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.”

When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964. Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation. Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book Bamboozled:

“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag. It was our party’s flag. That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats. That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”

How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote? Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.

Nevertheless, deception—what all warfare is based on, according to ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, won’t work with independents. Obama’s reelection strategy of slander and defaming all conservatives and Republicans as racists won’t win him that all-important center.

With a “recovery” missing 8.5 million jobs, unemployment going in the wrong direction and no perceived end to our economic misery in sight, Obama obviously doesn’t see winning a second term without getting down in the gutter to inspire his bulwark leftists.

This latest attempt to stir up Obama’s base by former President Clinton is just the beginning. Digging up the ghost of Jim Crow Past may have worked before, but the political landscape has changed. And Americans are seemingly ready to vote their wallets in 2012.

This contest will be a battle between the Democrat Party of higher taxes, more spending and backbiting, and the Republican Party of lower taxes, job creation and solving America’s problems."

Democrats Should Know Jim Crow, They Created Him | Human Events

Interesting observation from 50 years ago

But it is TODAYS Republicans fighting for the display of the Confederate Flag
TODAYS Republicans opposing affirmative action and voting rights
TODAYS Republicans fighting for States Rights

Wal-Mart won't carry confederate flags no more.

Jus sayin (-:

 

[bendog]

awww...marty, you still trying to make it so that bigoted pondscum get to put up signs saying "no blacks, no jews, no gays"?

then you whine when it's pointed out that you're bigots..

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

Where have I posted that I support abortion bans? My issue is that it isn't in the constitution, and is thus a State issue.

My views on abortion is limited to it being considered an elective procedure unless there is a health issue, and at least parental notification for anyone under 18 before they have one (with judicial outs of course, speedy ones at that).

And "without government" who is advocating for no government?

These days anyone doing that would probably go out of business pretty quickly. Now a sign that says "we cater to heterosexual weddings" would probably not be as bad in some locations, but probably not most.

So the airhead thinks everyone who disagrees with her is a socon.

Abortion isn't in the Constitution, so it's a State issue. I think the States should make it legal though

They have an easier time debating with the people with religious objections because of the scorn they feel for anyone with faith. I on the other hand respect people like that, as I am a lapsed Catholic at best. I also respect atheists who aren't assholes about it.

They have a harder time dealing directly with Strict Constructionists, and thus have to go find ulterior motives for our views.

I don't think that's entirely right. The bakers are hypocrites, and they hate the sinner, not just the sin ... assuming there is any sin involved, and Jesus wasn't big on hypocrites.

But the Framers didn't have the hubris to try and fashion a system of government on Jesus. And, I don't see any reason state and local govts couldn't pass a law requiring any biz that chose not to serve some group, to post notice in large clear letters on their front door.

 

[kaz]

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

Where have I posted that I support abortion bans? My issue is that it isn't in the constitution, and is thus a State issue.

My views on abortion is limited to it being considered an elective procedure unless there is a health issue, and at least parental notification for anyone under 18 before they have one (with judicial outs of course, speedy ones at that).

And "without government" who is advocating for no government?

These days anyone doing that would probably go out of business pretty quickly. Now a sign that says "we cater to heterosexual weddings" would probably not be as bad in some locations, but probably not most.

So the airhead thinks everyone who disagrees with her is a socon.

Abortion isn't in the Constitution, so it's a State issue. I think the States should make it legal though

They have an easier time debating with the people with religious objections because of the scorn they feel for anyone with faith. I on the other hand respect people like that, as I am a lapsed Catholic at best. I also respect atheists who aren't assholes about it.

They have a harder time dealing directly with Strict Constructionists, and thus have to go find ulterior motives for our views.

I don't think that's entirely right. The bakers are hypocrites, and they hate the sinner, not just the sin ... assuming there is any sin involved, and Jesus wasn't big on hypocrites.

But the Framers didn't have the hubris to try and fashion a system of government on Jesus. And, I don't see any reason state and local govts couldn't pass a law requiring any biz that chose not to serve some group, to post notice in large clear letters on their front door.

I don't know as much as you do to judge the bakers. But I do agree with your second paragraph. I think it should be like privacy policies. You can have any discrimination policy you want, but if you discriminate, you need to clearly post it. That way your customers, employees, vendors and so on can decide if they want to do business with you

 

[martybegan]

you didn't answer the question.

My issue is always government overreach and the idiotic punishment of hurting someone else's feelings, but only the feelings of special protected people.

without government, you wackos get to post signs saying "no blacks no jews, no gays". why are you oblivious to that?

oh right.... never mind.

and you don't give a damn about big government when it makes women do what you want them to.

Where have I posted that I support abortion bans? My issue is that it isn't in the constitution, and is thus a State issue.

My views on abortion is limited to it being considered an elective procedure unless there is a health issue, and at least parental notification for anyone under 18 before they have one (with judicial outs of course, speedy ones at that).

And "without government" who is advocating for no government?

These days anyone doing that would probably go out of business pretty quickly. Now a sign that says "we cater to heterosexual weddings" would probably not be as bad in some locations, but probably not most.

So the airhead thinks everyone who disagrees with her is a socon.

Abortion isn't in the Constitution, so it's a State issue. I think the States should make it legal though

They have an easier time debating with the people with religious objections because of the scorn they feel for anyone with faith. I on the other hand respect people like that, as I am a lapsed Catholic at best. I also respect atheists who aren't assholes about it.

They have a harder time dealing directly with Strict Constructionists, and thus have to go find ulterior motives for our views.

I don't think that's entirely right. The bakers are hypocrites, and they hate the sinner, not just the sin ... assuming there is any sin involved, and Jesus wasn't big on hypocrites.

But the Framers didn't have the hubris to try and fashion a system of government on Jesus. And, I don't see any reason state and local govts couldn't pass a law requiring any biz that chose not to serve some group, to post notice in large clear letters on their front door.

The issue is we don't really know WHAT they think, and honestly we shouldn't care unless there was actual harm done to the people they refused service to. Hurt feelings are not harm. having to go to another baker a few minutes away is not harm.

I don't have an issue with signage, but you know progressives would make the wording as instigating as possible.

 

[bendog]

Well the bakers happily bake for adulterers ..... but I believe they have a right to be boorish.

 

[Unkotare]

It is "one can believe that the prohibitions on racial discrimination in private contracts should not have been constitutional, and one can still not be a racist."

It does not mean the gop can be absolved of the racist attacks against the potus that the gop chose not to condemn for the past 8 years.

If 'all men are created equal', and governments are formed to secure such rights as equality,

how does it get to be unconstitutional for the government of the United States to take as part of its prerogatives to secure the equal rights of minorities?

We have no disagreement that governments cannot treat citizens differently because of any irrelevant differences based on race, belief, sexual orientation or gender.

We do have a disagreement on whether the fed govt should have had the power to prevent any person of any race deciding that he/she didn't want to contract with another person because of their race ... or belief, sexual orientation or gender. That is a black person, or even a gay person, had the right to be boorish, just as a white person did. Accepting that the Founders did not intend to make it illegal for people to be boorish or prejudiced in their own private dealings does not make one racist. Rather, it means that one believes the Founders believed that when ideas were freely debated and left open to being tested, the majority would reach the right decision. And Wal-Mart and Kentucky Fried would do away with segregated businesses.

government has every right to make sure that we don't live with jim crow laws.

Hah. Do you know what you are talking about? What it means is we need to get rid of Al Gore Jr, Bill Clinton and his beotch as well as the rest of the KKK in the Democrat Party. Get rid of the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center that is all white. Talk about revisionist history on the part of the Dems here!

"In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born. By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems. These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation. Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous. However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states: They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.”

When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964. Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation. Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book Bamboozled:

“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag. It was our party’s flag. That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats. That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”

How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote? Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.

Nevertheless, deception—what all warfare is based on, according to ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, won’t work with independents. Obama’s reelection strategy of slander and defaming all conservatives and Republicans as racists won’t win him that all-important center.

With a “recovery” missing 8.5 million jobs, unemployment going in the wrong direction and no perceived end to our economic misery in sight, Obama obviously doesn’t see winning a second term without getting down in the gutter to inspire his bulwark leftists.

This latest attempt to stir up Obama’s base by former President Clinton is just the beginning. Digging up the ghost of Jim Crow Past may have worked before, but the political landscape has changed. And Americans are seemingly ready to vote their wallets in 2012.

This contest will be a battle between the Democrat Party of higher taxes, more spending and backbiting, and the Republican Party of lower taxes, job creation and solving America’s problems."

Democrats Should Know Jim Crow, They Created Him | Human Events

Interesting observation from 50 years ago

But it is TODAYS Republicans fighting for the display of the Confederate Flag
TODAYS Republicans opposing affirmative action and voting rights
TODAYS Republicans fighting for States Rights

1) I thought liberals held that flags aren't important.

2) Who is opposed to voting rights? Not part of any GOP platform I've ever seen. The only party that has actually worked against voting rights is the democrat party.

3) Is it your contention that states have no rights? Have you read the Constitution?