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.
Oh, how many of those people do you see out on the street saying those things?
(Hint: Zero)
Exactly my point. Equality is everywhere in America. The only ones who don't want equality are these liberal fools calling anyone who disagrees with them on the issues a "racist."
Post 1960's racism isn't about overt words or acts in most cases. It's about political policies and initiatives that adversely affect groups of people with necessarily using over racist rhetoric.
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to Political Scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis' book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the 6 October 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP's Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "N****r, n****r, n****r." By 1968 you can't say "n****r" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N****r, n****r."[6][7]
Post 1960's racism isn't about overt words or acts in most cases. It's about political policies and initiatives that adversely affect groups of people with necessarily using over racist rhetoric.
There was NEVER any consensus amongst the FOUNDING FATHERS.
I would suggest you read the Federalist Papers.
The earliest political battles in this country were between those that wanted a strong federal government and those the wanted more power for the states. It has been an ongoing battle since the creation of this country.
Historically the states rights advocates have lost the moral and LEGAL high ground in this argument BECAUSE THEY HAVE HISTORICALLY PASSED LAWS THAT INFRINGE ON OR SUBVERT THE RIGHTS OF CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE.
State Laws Historically
Limit Abortion
Limit the civil rights of certain groups of people
Historically the states rights advocates have lost the moral and LEGAL high ground in this argument BECAUSE THEY HAVE HISTORICALLY PASSED LAWS THAT INFRINGE ON OR SUBVERT THE RIGHTS OF CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE.
Government has never been, nor will ever be, moral. Until you understand that you will stay lost.
There was NEVER any consensus amongst the FOUNDING FATHERS.
I would suggest you read the Federalist Papers.
The earliest political battles in this country were between those that wanted a strong federal government and those the wanted more power for the states. It has been an ongoing battle since the creation of this country.
Historically the states rights advocates have lost the moral and LEGAL high ground in this argument BECAUSE THEY HAVE HISTORICALLY PASSED LAWS THAT INFRINGE ON OR SUBVERT THE RIGHTS OF CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE.
State Laws Historically
Limit Abortion
Limit the civil rights of certain groups of people
Limit state resources to certain groups of people
Limit marraige by certain groups of people
Limit voting rights
Technically speaking, the first real political battle between the federalists and anti-federalists happened in 1798 as a result of the Alien and sedition acts, which limited rights of the states and the people through government despotism.
After Thomas Jefferson(a man with a lisp, who refused to give the annual State of the Union message, and would be totally unelectable today) took power in 1800 from the severe hatred resulting in the abuses of federal power. The federalists, spearheaded by the power hungry Alexander Hamilton basically crawled into a hole and died for several decades. Only to be revived by the worst attrocity in American history, the Civil War.
I am pretty sure things like the TSA, Homeland security, the patriot act, as well as countless other things might be interpreted as the federal government taking away the rights of the people.
You seem to think that since the government passed some unconstitutional laws to perform some kind of public good that you agree with, that it suddenly makes them a bunch of angels? Get ****ing real.
The only difference in the relationship between the states and the federal government is that, the federal government has the power to force the states into submission, otherwise the people of the several states are no better than the people of any given state, and theres no reason to believe otherwise.
Why don't you go ask basically anyone who doesn't live in the United States what they think of our government and our laws. Ask them if this is really a free country, ask them a little about our military despotism across the world, that never would have existed under a Thomas Jefferson or a James Madison(the father of the constitution).
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.
