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.
The state government and the cities and counties all have regulations that the federal government doesnt. You would be better served getting rid of regulation on that level than you would the federal one.
The States and local level also have more laws.
When Conservatives(or most people in general) make a statement about big government, they really only mean it on a federal level, it isnt comprehensive and thats my problem with it.
If an individual is against "big government" then do so on all levels, not just the federal...even though that argument usually changes when their party is in power. Then it is just "bad governance".
The main advantage to state over federal government is it is less costly to vote with your feet.
It is when an issue is a choice between being governed by state and local governments that most "smaller" government types prefer the state. While I agree this seems better on paper in reality the Feds have had to come in to protect minority rights in our history. The Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments and violations of the Bill of Rights by those governments must be addressed by the Feds.
I have no problem with protests - but when they block streets, interrupt paying customers in malls or restaruants, destroy property, and infringe upon normal sensibilities - it has crossed the lines and the message it lost. .
so either you do or you don't have a problem with protests. which is it?
Yes I remember MLK very well and supported him. He was a flawed person but he was a visionary and a true leader. He helped to right the many wrongs that were being done to people of color. 1968 was for me a year that I will never forget. The Vietnam war was raging and there were many protest marches against the war and also the whole MLK inspired civil rights movement. The war protest brought down the Johnson presidency but ironically it was Johnson who pushed through the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act, both of which were championed by MLK.
The late 60's was also the era of free love, Timothy Leary, Woodstock and Haight Ashbury. But that is another story.
This board skews old, so some of you may remember Dr King. Conservatives love to point to MLK as the example that all black protestors should follow, but when he was alive, conservatives hated him. Those of you who actually remember the man, be honest: how did you feel about him, back then?
I respected him until I fond out the "turned traitor" when he made the deal with Bobby( supported by John) Kennedy to get out of jail.
This board skews old, so some of you may remember Dr King. Conservatives love to point to MLK as the example that all black protestors should follow, but when he was alive, conservatives hated him. Those of you who actually remember the man, be honest: how did you feel about him, back then?
Oh, you believe I'm mulatto otherwise you would looooooove conversing with me. I mean if I were white and wanted to hang your mother from a tree we would both "be American" and therefore you would entirely want to understand me, be sad we both can't get along, and you would want us both to unite.
You know who people hate most? According to one academic study some years ago. But my own observation and life experience tells me the conclusions of the study are correct. People hate most those that are most like them but with slight differences.
So, if you read or hear stories from the Freedom Riders (I think they were called), those that got the worst beatings from racist whites weren't blacks. They were the so-called "n---er lovers" on the buses. One of those whites took a beating that left him paralyzed for life.
(I suspect why so many white men hate Hope Solo with such vehemence is in part due to who she is married to: a black man.)
The Catholic Inquisition did not go after, held no authority over, non-baptized Jewes and Muslims. They went after "conversos" and "moriscos." To be guilty of heresy you have to have a likeness but it altered with a slight difference.
Or you take many liberal Americans rage over a guy having sex with another guy but claiming to be heterosexual. It enrages them as much as white skinned men with mulatto fathers, decades ago, used to "pass" by calling themselves white. The American logic, and fear of "infiltration," is that white women can give birth to black children and white children but black women can only give birth to black children. Likewise, in the American logic and fear, in their confusion, a gay man married to a woman for 20 years and producing 5 children with her, when he comes out as "gay" and leaves her he was and has always been gay. No amount of having sex with women makes him straight. However, if a gay man has a boyfriend for 5 years and leaves it for admitting he is heterosexual, he can only be gay in the American liberals mind.
The term mulatto is not used much in the USA. How the term was derived is hypothesized. It's not known for sure. A popular hypothesis is the one you mentioned about making reference to mules (apparently, in this thinking the Spaniards never saw mulattos producing children). A different hypothesis is that the Spaniards derived term from a similar word the Muslim Moors of Spain used to denote the offspring between a Muslim Moor and Spanish Christian woman.
Either way I am not bothered by the term. I find it more descriptively precise than "biracial." Hapas are "biracials" and so are people that are half mestizo Mexican and half American white. So are people half Apache and half Chinese.
Mulatto is more clear just as mestizo is.
Americans are confused when they call Obama black and not mulatto or biracial. His black ancestry is not even ethnically "African-American" or what I prefer to term Black-American.
Anyways your comment about biracial black/white people not calling themselves mulatto (while admittedly few do) because it means "mule" is kind of stupid. Unless you regard biracial people as morally and intellectually smarter than blacks or something. Given plenty of Black-Americans refer to themselves, and each other with the "N word."
I use the N word, ending with the letter "a," at times myself. Why would "mulatto" be any worse a term?
Anyways, at the end of the day, MLK was a Protestant pastor reared Republican who promoted conservative social mores by today's standards. He was akin to a Condoleezza Rice.
It is hard to say what MLK would be today if he were alive. I suspect he would be Democrat but one with morally conservative views on certain things. And I think he would oppose military aggression against Russia.
So, again, do the Democrats teach black kids be non-violent against the Russians and love the Russians?
Why do white Americans celebrate the 4th of July when non-violence is the only way, and the confrontational war attitude of the Nation of Islam and Black Panther Party are only bad?
That's actually somewhat true. Big state is where it's a bit off. If one believes in states rights the power should go to the states. Preferably the state has less laws and regulations and allows local laws to take precedent or it's just another form of tyranny.
Well speaking of MLK some of those southern states had some pretty creative solutions regarding segregation, should they have been allowed to continue down that path and avoid tyranny?
You've evidently never worked in the modern Northern construction trades.
The union (Democrats) construction trades to this day are notorious for their racism. They have kept a lot of black people out of the construction unions.
I've worked in that field. It's possibly one of the most racist career fields around. Particularly the unions which have a culture not to far removed from the early 1960s.
The government jobs with government workers belonging to unions is entirely different. Those are mainly black probably.
Liberal academia still holds to their sacred dogma of biological determinism as they did in the 1930's. They just don't apply it to of teach it about black people now. Instead they teach it about sexual orientation and gender identity. They also teach it about poor people (aborting their offspring is good etc.)
A hidden reason for wanting unions, in many cases, was to avoid being undercut in wage demands by minority candidates. That happened in many industries. In all parts of the nation. When black Americans came north for auto jobs, Michigan KKK membership absolutely soared, faster than it had in many Southern states. Racism is not a Southern monopoly , even in Jim Crow or slavery times. NYC residents (big %) did not want to join the union as their economy was highly dependent on slave auctions held in Manhattan.
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.
