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.
As far as a Presidential election its about the Feds sure. But I disagree with the part about that people believe big government is about feds mainly. It's harder to overturn which makes it more powerful. Its about over reaching no matter where it is.
When people think Big Gubmint, nine times out of ten, it is on the federal level rather than the state because most people don't follow state politics, let alone bite in state elections.
Quote:
Which is what the CRA did when it went into the private sector. No matter how well intentioned it was. I'm sure those that supported Jim Crow thought that was well intentioned too. And that's the rub. Using force and coercion to get what you want. Not saying you're for that to get what you want.
And didn't Jim Crow use it on the other side of the issue? I agree we shouldn't force things either way but not enough people truly stay out of other's business when it comes to rights. Especially Christian conservatives.
Quote:
Not in this case because states cannot discriminate in the public sector. States don't have a right to do that whether you believe in states rights or not.
He's about the rights of the individual and the Constitution is the accurate statement.
I don't agree with affirmative action but that is because I don't see race. Sadly too many do with the names Obama has been called. Like a white guy would be called a mongrel by Ted Nuggent or a Muslim despite never wearing rational Muslim clothing.
The constitution shouldn't give an individual the right to infringe on another's rights. If you think that, you aren't for TRUE individual rights.
Quote:
I don't understand this part.
I shouldn't be surprised. I am equating a persistent who wants to say the states should decide on bigoted laws (gay marriage bans, religious freedom allowing discrimination, anti interracial marriage bans, segregation, etc.) is the same thing as a president pocket vetoing a law he doesn't want to sign but won't fully veto the law. The president who pushes for that is condoning it.
Rand Paul isn't ready for prime time.
He shushed one female reporter, talked over another, got schooled by Megyn Kelly, and now walked out of a Guardian interview.
The persecution complex is strong in that man.
Probably true he does not hide government emails illegally on his own server . He also does not have a foundation which sells our uranium to Iran so he probably is not crooked enough to be prime time
I have just two questions with regard to the whole CRA discussion.
1. Do you think if Rand Paul were elected President, Congress would overturn the CRA? (Hint, not only no, but hell no)
2. If the CRA were overturned, would businesses choose racial discrimination as a way of life, and manage to stay in business? (Hint, again, not only no, but hell no)
This is all a distraction from issues where the left fears Rand Paul might connect with a lot of voters, such as a less interventionist foreign policy, ending foreign aid, ending unconstitutional spying, ending the worthless War On Drugs.... These may not be popular issues with the GOP establishment, but they could pull in independents and younger voters.
With Rand Paul wanting to end drug laws that have a disparate impact on the minority community, he may pull in some of those voters, and I think that is why the left is so desperate to paint Rand Paul as racist.
When people think Big Gubmint, nine times out of ten, it is on the federal level rather than the state because most people don't follow state politics, let alone bite in state elections.
I think the Federal level gets more publicity as it affects everyone. Why should people on California care what happens in Texas? Unless it's an extreme case or a similar case they won't hear it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
And didn't Jim Crow use it on the other side of the issue?
Which is why I pointed it out, The CRA when it comes to private property rights is the same as Jim Crow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I agree we shouldn't force things either way but not enough people truly stay out of other's business when it comes to rights. Especially Christian conservatives.
Agreed on the Christian part. Practice what you preach.
So why are you on the side of force on this issue when it comes to private property rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I don't agree with affirmative action but that is because I don't see race. Sadly too many do with the names Obama has been called. Like a white guy would be called a mongrel by Ted Nuggent or a Muslim despite never wearing rational Muslim clothing.
Nugent is a fill-in-the-blank- with whatever derogatory name you want, I'll agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
The constitution shouldn't give an individual the right to infringe on another's rights. If you think that, you aren't for TRUE individual rights.
No one has a right to anothers work. If you think they do then you obviously don't know what a right is so why comment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I shouldn't be surprised.
I shouldn't be surprised you missed the point on what a right is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I am equating a persistent who wants to say the states should decide on bigoted laws (gay marriage bans, religious freedom allowing discrimination, anti interracial marriage bans, segregation, etc.) is the same thing as a president pocket vetoing a law he doesn't want to sign but won't fully veto the law. The president who pushes for that is condoning it.
And you would be wrong.
No one has a right to marriage. You have the right to live your life unencumbered as long as you don't step on the rights of others. Forcing an individual or a private business to accept or deny ANY marriage isn't standing up for rights. It's about control. The problem began when big government interfered in marriage.
Which opened the door for things like smoking bans in privates businesses.
You do realize that by not allowing gays to marry, they interfere on marriage right? What's next, redefining marriage for those who don't want to get married by God? The problem is unless we get rid of the rights given to married couples (tax laws, insurance, hospital visitation, etc.) we should allow gays to marry by law. Also only a few private businesses only have to be forced to accept gay marriage after the actual wedding namely insurance companies because they would have provide them with the same services a heterosexual marriage would get. Why, because of equal protection under the law granted by the constitutions.
I have just two questions with regard to the whole CRA discussion.
1. Do you think if Rand Paul were elected President, Congress would overturn the CRA? (Hint, not only no, but hell no)
2. If the CRA were overturned, would businesses choose racial discrimination as a way of life, and manage to stay in business? (Hint, again, not only no, but hell no)
This is all a distraction from issues where the left fears Rand Paul might connect with a lot of voters, such as a less interventionist foreign policy, ending foreign aid, ending unconstitutional spying, ending the worthless War On Drugs.... These may not be popular issues with the GOP establishment, but they could pull in independents and younger voters.
With Rand Paul wanting to end drug laws that have a disparate impact on the minority community, he may pull in some of those voters, and I think that is why the left is so desperate to paint Rand Paul as racist.
I can smell the DNC fear from here.
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?
You do realize that by not allowing gays to marry, they interfere on marriage right? What's next, redefining marriage for those who don't want to get married by God? The problem is unless we get rid of the rights given to married couples (tax laws, insurance, hospital visitation, etc.) we should allow gays to marry by law. Also only a few private businesses only have to be forced to accept gay marriage after the actual wedding namely insurance companies because they would have provide them with the same services a heterosexual marriage would get. Why, because of equal protection under the law granted by the constitutions.
Marriage has been defined for millenniums.
2015, we have to have a redefinition, because everyone woke up, that government doesn't treat everyone equally and never will as long as we let them control our lives.
I'm all for getting government out of the marriage business.
I'm also for getting government out of dictating who I have to associate with business, too.
He's given me pause to think, especially with his habit of talking down to female interviewers. But re the thread title, I didn't come to an opinion one way or the other until he trashmouthed Baltimore parents. After that, it's hard to align his comments with his own family problems.
I'm dismayed that he doesn't see the irony. It's one thing to experience family problems, I get that. It's quite another to experience problems and then just a few days later publicly beat down on those who are going through the same. How could he miss that? Nope, he's not ready for prime time.
He's given me pause to think, especially with his habit of talking down to female interviewers.
A female reporter can lie about his policies but when he fights back it's all about the reporters sex, Because gosh oh gee he never would have said that to a man right? You're post is sexist, understood
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom
But re the thread title, I didn't come to an opinion one way or the other until he trashmouthed Baltimore parents.
He didn't bad mouth Baltimore parents. he said families need father figures. You practicing to be a reporter too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom
After that, it's hard to align his comments with his own family problems.
Because it's never about policy right? Ignore the fact he's been right about the economy or our intervention in the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom
I'm dismayed that he doesn't see the irony.
I'm dismayed you think your post is credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom
It's one thing to experience family problems, I get that. It's quite another to experience problems and then just a few days later publicly beat down on those who are going through the same. How could he miss that?
Because YOU missed the point isn't on him that's on you.
Agreed. Freedom isn't piecemeal. You either believe in it or you don't. No one has the right to anothers work. Someone wants to ban another based on their skin color, sex, or religious beliefs, they should have the right to do so. They would be morally wrong imo but I have no right to use force to get what I want. No different than Jim Crow using force on others to make them stop serving blacks.
Government didn't turn the tide with the Civil Rights Act. We the people did through our civil disobedience and civil rights marches.
“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.
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.
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.
I agree we shouldn't force things either way but not enough people truly stay out of other's business when it comes to rights. Especially Christian conservatives.
