U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-29-2015, 05:36 AM
 
Location: *
8,093 posts, read 2,411,258 times
Reputation: 2212

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HuskyMama View Post
Rand Paul describes the days of Jim Crow as horrific. He's also on record decrying the disproportionate impact drug law sentencing has on the voting rights of young black males. But because he thinks we might have found a solution to the Jim Crow laws by other means, that automatically makes him a racist? By that "logic", every pro-choice proponent is of the moral caliber of Kermit Gosnell.

Not all Republicans are mindlessly pro-life, not all Democrats are mindlessly pro-choice. Many people are in favor of some moderate restrictions on abortion. The occasional fundamentalist says something stupid and insensitive. That doesn't mean all Republicans agree.

The boogeyman isn't coming to steal away women's contraception. You're delusional and paranoid if you think the availability of contraception will be limited if Republicans take office, no matter what you think some fundamentalist idiot "hinted".

There's no overriding objection to contraception being covered by health insurance - the issue is the mandate that all policies sold must cover it. Contrary to the Democrats who act like women are weak wilting flowers, Republicans believe it's up to the woman whether she takes a job with or without insurance, that does or doesn't cover birth control. If her insurance policy doesn't cover it, she's more than capable of handling it herself, the same as a man is capable of buying condoms without being subsidized by the government or health insurance. It's ludicrous to conflate the possibility that women might continue to buy their own birth control, pretty much the way they did for decades prior to the ACA, to women hating.

Do you not see the irony of accusing an entire party of being racist/sexist/hateful/homophobic as you rail against nasty half-baked stereotypes?

But I guess when sowing the seeds of division, hatred, perennial victimhood, and paranoia is all you've got, that's what you do.
What are the solutions to the Jim Crow laws that Dr. Paul has coherently explained?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2015, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,719 posts, read 11,205,600 times
Reputation: 6145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; & if wrong, to be set right.” - Carl Schurz, 1872

Freedom in these (precariously) United States IS piecemeal. We have a Constitution that doesn’t mention slavery by name. We had a Civil War where the Confederate States clearly expressed their rationale for secession was to defend slavery. After the American Civil War, the Slave States used the power restored to them to avenge the defeat of slavery through Jim Crow laws. Almost a 100 years passed from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (defining US citizenship & equal protection under the law) to the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s (‘undoing’ the Jim Crow laws) on up to the present day. Personally, the present day civil disobedience doesn’t mean folks believe the Jim Crow days are returning. Although I think the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s demonstrate one of best arguments for the federal government in its effort to keep the promises made in the 1860s. The arguments made in defense of States’ Rights are often incoherent when viewed in these contexts.
One of the jobs of the Federal government is to defend rights. They haven't done a very good job of it. If the CRA didn't force private business to bow to governments will even when no ones rights have been violated, we'd have less problems today. No one has a right to anothers work.

The Confederate States rational was slavery as well as taxes and where those taxes went.

As far as not mentioning slavery by name in the Constitution, I've always wondered why kidnapping was legal back then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 06:12 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,719 posts, read 11,205,600 times
Reputation: 6145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
What are the solutions to the Jim Crow laws that Dr. Paul has coherently explained?
He said to undo Jim Crow. They were unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 06:36 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,441 posts, read 33,753,226 times
Reputation: 14220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
He said to undo Jim Crow. They were unconstitutional.

Correct. Instead of the politically motivated CRA, all they needed to do was remove Jim Crow from the law. It would have been found unconstitutional eventually, under the equal protections under the constitution.

It would have been unconstitutional for government to force businesses and government to discriminate.

Now you have government forcing business not to discriminate. And again, government takes control. Which is no worse than Jim Crow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Utah
546 posts, read 325,124 times
Reputation: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Paul seemingly flip flopped on his foreign policy for his presidential platform based on what he said for his candidate speech. He now is more hawkish than he was say six months ago when he was an against internationalist foreign policy and Israeli aide. Not that I wasn't against Paul to begin with, I was actually thinking of voting for him but now that he flip-flopped, which Paul would we get in the White House?
I wouldn't call it a flip-flop, merely a clarification. But hey, you're free to vote for anyone you think will be less of a hawk...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 05:30 PM
 
Location: *
8,093 posts, read 2,411,258 times
Reputation: 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
One of the jobs of the Federal government is to defend rights. They haven't done a very good job of it. If the CRA didn't force private business to bow to governments will even when no ones rights have been violated, we'd have less problems today. No one has a right to anothers work.
Are you saying the Federal Government was defending the individual rights of slaves during the American Civil War?

Immediately after, the 'lost causers' avenged the defeat of slavery through Jim Crow laws. These were not Federal laws, they differed from State to State:

List of Jim Crow law examples by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree (if this is what you're saying?) the ruling in Plessy v Ferguson upholding the individual State (Jim Crow) laws requiring segregation ushered in the Dark Ages of the 'separate but equal' doctrine. The Federal Government should've acted quicker. Although without the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, the individual States wouldn't have acted at all.

& I don't understand how folks who espouse individual rights as sacrosanct can, seemingly, at the same time, ignore the rights & freedoms of so many individuals?

Quote:
The Confederate States rational was slavery as well as taxes and where those taxes went.
Slavery was the sine qua non of the ACW, without which, there would be no War. I don't understand when some folks speak as if slavery was somehow irrelevant, as if the individual rights of slaves were irrelevant?

Quote:
As far as not mentioning slavery by name in the Constitution, I've always wondered why kidnapping was legal back then?
I think more than a few people wonder why slavery was legal back then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 05:34 PM
 
Location: *
8,093 posts, read 2,411,258 times
Reputation: 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Correct. Instead of the politically motivated CRA, all they needed to do was remove Jim Crow from the law. It would have been found unconstitutional eventually, under the equal protections under the constitution.

It would have been unconstitutional for government to force businesses and government to discriminate.

Now you have government forcing business not to discriminate. And again, government takes control. Which is no worse than Jim Crow.
Who is they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2015, 07:01 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,441 posts, read 33,753,226 times
Reputation: 14220
Quote:
Originally Posted by chigeekguest View Post
who is they?


1964
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,719 posts, read 11,205,600 times
Reputation: 6145
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Are you saying the Federal Government was defending the individual rights of slaves during the American Civil War?
They violated the Constitution from day one to even allow slavery imo. I'm saying the CRA violates the rights of the individuals when it says a private business cannot discriminate. Government doesn't own the individual or their business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Immediately after, the 'lost causers' avenged the defeat of slavery through Jim Crow laws. These were not Federal laws, they differed from State to State:

List of Jim Crow law examples by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree (if this is what you're saying?) the ruling in Plessy v Ferguson upholding the individual State (Jim Crow) laws requiring segregation ushered in the Dark Ages of the 'separate but equal' doctrine. The Federal Government should've acted quicker. Although without the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, the individual States wouldn't have acted at all.
Without the Civil Rights marches and civil disobedience by we the people, not the CRA. The CRA gets way to much credit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
& I don't understand how folks who espouse individual rights as sacrosanct can, seemingly, at the same time, ignore the rights & freedoms of so many individuals?
If you are talking about slavery I'd guess it was because big money talks. If you are talking about nowadays those in the private sector who don't want to work for others based on skin color, religion, whatever reason, that doesn't fall under rights and freedoms. Allowing them to discriminate IS allowing rights and freedoms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Slavery was the sine qua non of the ACW, without which, there would be no War.
Well it was about preserving the union and not allowing secession. The reason didn't really matter as far as allowing secession. It could have been all about taxes and not just slavery and taxes. Or any reason for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I don't understand when some folks speak as if slavery was somehow irrelevant, as if the individual rights of slaves were irrelevant?
I don't understand this in that I haven't heard people saying slavery was irrelevant. Unless it's about the reason didn't matter since it was about secession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
I think more than a few people wonder why slavery was legal back then.
I never understood why non skilled workers were backing the slave owners? Putting aside the moral obligation, slavery hurt their wallet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 07:00 PM
 
Location: *
8,093 posts, read 2,411,258 times
Reputation: 2212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
They violated the Constitution from day one to even allow slavery imo.
The Slave States argued the exact opposite of what you're asserting:

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Quote:
Well it was about preserving the union and not allowing secession. The reason didn't really matter as far as allowing secession. It could have been all about taxes and not just slavery and taxes. Or any reason for that matter.

I don't understand this in that I haven't heard people saying slavery was irrelevant. Unless it's about the reason didn't matter since it was about secession.
I think the documents coherently speak for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top