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 wasn't saying anyone had to. My question is a response to those who say that Democrats are the worst thing for Blacks. My response is this. Have Republicans been any better over the last 45 years?
Conservatives are not about buying friendships.
Why give anything when the strength is in earning it?
I had to show up Chi. Affirmative action dictates an anarchist post per 100 statist posts. That's the edict from your benevolent masters.
Yeah I know, 'you're not the boss of me' & so on. Zzzzzz ...
What gets me most is how predictable the drama has become. It's like watching a re-run over & over & over ... again that wasn't very good the first time.
Yeah I know, 'you're not the boss of me' & so on. Zzzzzz ...
What gets me most is how predictable the drama has become. It's like watching a re-run over & over & over ... again that wasn't very good the first time.
If I annoy you enough maybe we can unlock each other's shackles and be set free! We can then run in opposite directions.
It's predictable because it's principled. Something we argued over before.
You don't have to tell me how tough it is to be consistently logical & moral in life...I already know.
How so? The resistance to civil rights people are saying the same thing in the present day as the resisters were saying back then. What's changed?
What you ignore is the difference between the Barry Goldwater conservative versus the George Wallace conservative. Both types oppose the CRA of 1964 but for very different reasons.
You do not have to be a racist to oppose the expansion of the federal government into areas it has never been before. Nor do you have to be a racist to oppose an action on constitutional grounds.
Just because individuals share a vote on an issue does not mean that they came about voting that way for the same reason.
Stop trying to taint every one who opposes the CRA of 1964 as racist.
If I annoy you enough maybe we can unlock each other's shackles and be set free! We can then run in opposite directions.
It's predictable because it's principled. Something we argued over before.
You don't have to tell me how tough it is to be consistently logical & moral in life...I already know.
In reality, or, in real life, (yeah I know what a concept!) there's an idea called principled compromise. It's a component of the critical/creative thinking model/philosophy/problem-solving/solution providing methodology. It's a process of course & no ONE thing takes the place of a process. In short, it's very bloody useful in many reality based situations. It's been applied to present day scenarios & in looking back at (in order to learn from) historical events, for example, what if President Lincoln had lived? As it would have related to making principled compromises. Here is a book that speaks about this concept as relating to 'hate laws':
G'day & have a pleasant evening. (without shackling or unshackling anyone if at all possible, unless of course, you or they happen to like that sortof thing).
It was John F Kennedy's major program that he was unable to finish due to his untimely death while in office. John F. Kennedy: Domestic Affairs
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Untimely death by assassination. Like Martin Luther King. & Malcolm X. & Medgar Evers. & ...
Many years previously, closer in time to the 1st Civil Rights Act of 1875, President Lincoln.
Uncanny coincidence how folks just get offed when it comes to civil rights. The hate inspired violence didn't stop with the murder of President Lincoln.
What followed was 8-1 SCOTUS decision that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional.
When the CRA was thus stripped of its ability to protect civil rights, it was only natural for some folks to feel they were given much more than an inch, so proceeded to take the proverbial mile. With the accompanying hate & violence.
Jim Crow signage had already been posted & local & state laws cemented those 'Whites Only' signs firmly into place. With the accompanying hate & violence.
13 years later with Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) decision came 'separate but equal' doctrine, dogma, etc. With the accompanying hate & violence.
History rhymes with these present day white nationalists, racial 'realists' & supremacists talking the same crap. Thankfully, at least there seem to be fewer civil rights associated assassinations.
Does Government take care of its citizens or does Government protect itself ... ? imo, the Government first and foremost initiative is to protect itself at all cost. (I could go back to the days of Christ, but I won't, mentioning it should be good enough)
Martin Luther King: stood for love and unity ... assassinated
Malcolm X: was Muslim until meeting with MLK, he then had a change of heart, later was assassinated.
Medgar Evers: In the weeks leading up to his death, Evers found himself the target of a number of threats. His public investigations into the murder of Emmett Till and his vocal support of Clyde Kennard left him vulnerable to attack. NAACP History: Medgar Evers | NAACP
President Lincoln: was consistent at being inconsistent in citizenry and all that is known for sure is he believed in building a Union Government, upon States money. Think of him as a salesman on a mission. https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2...text-part-two/
1st Civil Rights Act of 1875: "It’s also worth recalling that, until recently, the history of the Democratic Party was overwhelmingly pro-slavery and pro-segregation. Lincoln’s successor, Democrat Andrew Johnson, vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and strongly resisted the passage of the 14th Amendment, which ensured equal rights and protections under the law, and was championed by Republicans. The subsequent Republican administration of Ulysses S. Grant implemented the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871, which helped dismantle the KKK and protect black voting rights. This was followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1875." Why Aren
History does rhyme that the only time one will see the Government and the citizen in tune with one another is when it benefits the Government to chime in ...
LBJ's Great Society was completing domestic policies not yet voted on by Congress during the Kennedy Administration ... Same as Obama today finishing up policies held by his predecessor, the Bush Administration.
JFK began the war on poverty through the implementation of the Peace Cor project states side. When Obama was on campaign he spoke off teleprompter from his heart in a speech delivered in Colorado ... 50 years later after (WOP) implementation true to Obama's promise, he delivered it. That was a speech that should have rocked this country, yet, it went over everyone's head.
This post is in the abstract as it is meant to be. It is up to the reader to find the four corners of the jigsaw puzzle and finish out the picture, by mating up the remaining pieces.
See I have often wonder what happened that great leaders like MLK have yet to emerge from our society and then I look at history ...
Abraham Lincoln, a house divided (from the book of Mathew) ... they're not divided ... "it's a great big club and you're not in it" George Carlin
What you ignore is the difference between the Barry Goldwater conservative versus the George Wallace conservative. Both types oppose the CRA of 1964 but for very different reasons.
You do not have to be a racist to oppose the expansion of the federal government into areas it has never been before. Nor do you have to be a racist to oppose an action on constitutional grounds.
I'm not ignoring the differences between Barry Goldwater & George Wallace.
I'm identifying racial supremacy, in 1875, in 1896, in 1964, & in the present day.
This is from SC Justice Harlan's Great Dissent (1896):
Quote:
...At issue was a Louisiana law compelling segregation of the races in rail coaches. To test the law's constitutionality, Homer Plessy, a Louisianan of mixed race, made a point of getting arrested for sitting in the whites-only section of a train car. When his case reached the Supreme Court, Plessy argued that enforced segregation in theoretically separate-but-equal accommodations compromised the principle of legal equality and marked blacks as inferior. The Court majority disagreed, declaring the law constitutional while saying it stamped blacks with "a badge of inferiority" only if "the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."
But if his fellow justices found no objections to the Louisiana law, John Harlan could find little else. He wrote:
"In the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. "Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. . .The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds."
Futhermore, argued Harlan, the decision would poison relations between the races.
"What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments, which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation." ...
Judge Harlan was right, this was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time, along with the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, & Dred Scott v. Sanford.
In reality, or, in real life, (yeah I know what a concept!) there's an idea called principled compromise. It's a component of the critical/creative thinking model/philosophy/problem-solving/solution providing methodology. It's a process of course & no ONE thing takes the place of a process. In short, it's very bloody useful in many reality based situations. It's been applied to present day scenarios & in looking back at (in order to learn from) historical events, for example, what if President Lincoln had lived? As it would have related to making principled compromises. Here is a book that speaks about this concept as relating to 'hate laws':
G'day & have a pleasant evening. (without shackling or unshackling anyone if at all possible, unless of course, you or they happen to like that sortof thing).
Principled compromise?
Sounds kinda lazy. Is it like voting?
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.
(without shackling or unshackling anyone if at all possible, unless of course, you or they happen to like that sortof thing).
