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.
YEE-HAW! Everybuddy git yer confedoret flags out, an yer beef jurky an porque rinds, an turn up the tobie keeth, an run arouwnd an act stoopid. duh confedoracy lives, an bubba appruves
Jeez, I've lived in Texas almost all of my life, and I've never tried to identify with the Confederacy, or old Texas, or the old south, or any of that stuff from two centuries ago. Grow up and wake up. It's the 21st century...
YEE-HAW! Everybuddy git yer confedoret flags out, an yer beef jurky an porque rinds, an turn up the tobie keeth, an run arouwnd an act stoopid. duh confedoracy lives, an bubba appruves
Jeez, I've lived in Texas almost all of my life, and I've never tried to identify with the Confederacy, or old Texas, or the old south, or any of that stuff from two centuries ago. Grow up and wake up. It's the 21st century...
How enlightened!
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana
How can one say that affirmative action has led to more racial disharmony?
It's easy to say it: Affirmitve action has lead to more racial disharmony!
Seriously though L2, I am having a harder and harder time of following your points. And no disrespect intended -- not in the least -- as it is obvious you are intelligent and capable of grasping the "art" of civil discourse/debate -- but many of your points are coming across as a bit superficial and more of emotion than substance to back up the said emotion. Now, ok maybe that is my fault...or maybe (which I really suspect is the case) we are just starting to talk past each other. Still though, I find you (at least IMHO) arguing points that I never brought up and creating straw-men of the same.
For instance, it should be no secret that affirmative action (quotas) has led -- rightly or wrongly -- to more racial disharmony. To think otherwise is head in sand. Black conservatives are among the strongest in stating such. It took all of 5 seconds to provide a good link among thousands out there:
The most tragic consequence of the DOJ actions is that it brings into question legitimate black achievement and possibly sours race relations. Some Dayton white police officers might see their fellow black police officers as affirmative action hires and have less respect and possibly bear a grudge for assumed differences in treatment. -- Walter Williams
Quote:
Who is to say that discrimination in the workplace wouldn't continue?
This sorta opens up a new can of worms, as far as I am concerned. If it is a privately owned business? Then yes, the owner (black, white, hispanic, asian, Indian, etc) should have the right to serve/hire/fire whoever they want to for whatever reason. Sometime, unfortunate and hateful as may be, there is a right to discriminate because the alternative is often worse.
Where it is WRONG WRONG and should be an offence under Civil Rights statutes is discrimination in government hiring (at whatever level).
Quote:
You can't blame the welfare state on King; blame it on FDR and LBJ.
And I don't. In fact, I DO blame it on politicians like LBJ and FDR. What I said was (and perhaps I didn't explain it well) I thought that King would have, if he had lived, probably supported the very programs that had the consequence of actually going against his original and admirable intentions at the time he died. Would he have supported forced busing and quota systems? I don't know...but I tend the think he would have. What do you think?
Quote:
On whose part is welfare slaver? The taxpayers or the recipients? People aren't forced to go on welfare and they certainly do not have to work. For those states that make welfare recipients get a job, those people aren't working for free; they are getting paid wages while being subsidized by the government. Millions of Caucasians receive government help by the way. My family was on welfare when I was a child, but I also used federal grants and loans to go to school. I am not a welfare recipient and I am not doomed to be a welfare recipient because I am free to move wherever I want and get a job.
A lot of this I agree with. I am just as opposed to "corporate welfare" as I am to any other type.
Quote:
It has also been found by the Supreme Court that state laws can be found unconstitutional. States have rights, but they do not have the right to violate the constitution. There is supposed to be a balance between the federal government and the states. There should be a checks and balances between the two. States have challenged federal laws and the federal government is responsible for enforcing federal law. The states were clearly violating people's constitutional rights, so I don't see how people can complain about states' rights when it comes to the Civil Rights Movement. The states do not have a right to violate individual rights. No one should have to wait. Rights violations need to be and should be remedied immediately. People shouldn't have to wait 100 years.
And you don't think the federal government has not violated the Bill of Rights by essentially dismissing the 9th and 10th ammendments? Regardless, most of this is what I meant earlier by arguing a point(s) I am not necessarily disagreeing with. It depends upon the issue, the context, and the time.
Repeat what? All this confederacy stuff is dead and gone forever. You're living in the past and holding onto something irrelevant in 2011.
By the way, the south lost! Get over it...
Sorry, fellow...all you do with your inarticulate points and posts is to make a fool out of yourself and, likely, make others distance themselves from you.
The Texians lost the battle of the Alamo. Should we tear it down and just "get over it" ?
TexasReb, I've been occupied this evening and unable to respond to your earlier post. I shall try to do so tomorrow. One thing I can respond to at this point is the whole idea of "inevitablity" in hindsight. Yet the conclusion of the Civil War was indeed inevitable once it become manifest that Lincoln was determined to forcefully oppose Southern secession and that he was able to rally a majority in the Congress and populace to support him in some measure. This was evident quite early in the situation, indeed quite soon after Lincoln actually took office in April 1861. I know that some historians believe that the South had a chance, even as early as the later part of 1864, up until it became pretty well certain that Lincoln would win re-election. However, this seems a form of apologetics - something to which historians sympathetic to the South too often resort. Thw South simply lacked the resources to succeed militarily and IMO never really had a chance of engaging British or French recognition and support. Britain did give recognition to the CSA as a belligerant but not as a country and the USA was sufficiently powerful to dissuade British/European recognition of the Confederacy. The South was just too economically weak in all respects to have any hope of prevailing either militarily or diplomatically against a determined opponent. The obviousness of this fact makes the actions of the secessionist politicians clearly reckless in the criminal sense of that term, i.e. they possessed the mental faculties to possess and appreciate the consequences of their actions but willfully ignored/disregarded their own knowledge. Apart from everything else, they willfully threw their respective States and people into a suicidal conflict. Such men cannot be regarded as heros. Arguments to the contrary are disingenuous. The men who led the secession and the CSA seem to have been incapable of being guided by clear, hard calculation - by realpolitik, as we should now say - and must be judged mad, stupid, or psychopathic in some real sense. Quite apart from their essential immorality.
I think this is an over-generalisation and over-simplification. In terms of the Southern politicians who led the secessionist movement and Confederate government, I do indeed consider them to have been traitors to their rightful country, the United States of America. They were self-interested demagogues who represented the interests of a slave labour dependent agri-business economic class. The common people were a sacrifice to the class interests of the people who led the secession. I submit, therefore, that far from being a "war of Northern aggression", it was really a war of Southern class exploitation -- with, of course, African-American chattel at the very bottom of the class exploitation system. Ordinary white Southerners - the majority of whom did not hold persons in slave-bondage - were caught up in the situation for a whole host of understandable reasons, but really they were at the mercy of wolves like Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens and the wealthy, slave-owning class whose interests such politicians aimed to advance.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
This is one of the real points that needs addressing by the slavery apologists on this thread.
Sorry, fellow...all you do with your inarticulate points and posts is to make a fool out of yourself and, likely, make others distance themselves from you.
The Texians lost the battle of the Alamo. Should we tear it down and just "get over it" ?
People stuck in the past and dwelling on irrelevant and stupid matters from centuries ago are the folks that others will distance themselves from.
Texians losing the battle of the Alamo? Whoopy doo. Why don't you build yourself a time-machine and go back then and try to change it. Nobody can relate to or make any sense of what you are trying to say.
doctorjef: While I agree with most of your points, it wasn't at all clear during the first half of the Civil War that the North would be sufficiently determined to keep going. There was a strong 'peace party' in the North, strengthened by the early Southern victories. If the war hadn't gone so well for the North in 1864, Lincoln likely would not have been reelected. He fully expected to lose before Atlanta fell.
It's easy to say it: Affirmitve action has lead to more racial disharmony!
Seriously though L2, I am having a harder and harder time of following your points. And no disrespect intended -- not in the least -- as it is obvious you are intelligent and capable of grasping the "art" of civil discourse/debate -- but many of your points are coming across as a bit superficial and more of emotion than substance to back up the said emotion. Now, ok maybe that is my fault...or maybe (which I really suspect is the case) we are just starting to talk past each other. Still though, I find you (at least IMHO) arguing points that I never brought up and creating straw-men of the same.
No disrespect intended, but this just sounds like a defense mechanism and so does selective amnesia.
Quote:
For instance, it should be no secret that affirmative action (quotas) has led -- rightly or wrongly -- to more racial disharmony. To think otherwise is head in sand. Black conservatives are among the strongest in stating such. It took all of 5 seconds to provide a good link among thousands out there:
There is no way to prove that affirmative action has led to more racial disharmony. Race relations have improved since the Civil Rights Act was passed. Could there be even more racial harmony if it weren't for affirmative action? You can't do an experiment on the past and put a control on it. But I do think that if discrimination continued amongst employers (name discrimination against applicants is still common), then there would be even more racial disharmony.
Quote:
This sorta opens up a new can of worms, as far as I am concerned. If it is a privately owned business? Then yes, the owner (black, white, hispanic, asian, Indian, etc) should have the right to serve/hire/fire whoever they want to for whatever reason. Sometime, unfortunate and hateful as may be, there is a right to discriminate because the alternative is often worse.
Where it is WRONG WRONG and should be an offence under Civil Rights statutes is discrimination in government hiring (at whatever level).
I will elaborate more on private property rights and states' rights further down.
Quote:
And I don't. In fact, I DO blame it on politicians like LBJ and FDR. What I said was (and perhaps I didn't explain it well) I thought that King would have, if he had lived, probably supported the very programs that had the consequence of actually going against his original and admirable intentions at the time he died. Would he have supported forced busing and quota systems? I don't know...but I tend the think he would have. What do you think?
This is like me saying that Confederate soldiers aren't heroes of mine because I think they would have supported the continuation of slavery and I think they supported Jim Crow Laws.
Quote:
A lot of this I agree with. I am just as opposed to "corporate welfare" as I am to any other type.
For someone who dislikes sensationalism in the media, I'm surprised you linked to that preposterous article. The author of that article linked plantations and slavery to social programs in an attempt to rouse emotions in readers. Her point could have been made better if she didn't resort to this inaccurate comparison. Does welfare give people an incentive to work? No. Does welfare address the causes of poverty? No. Are social programs a new form of slavery? Most certainly not.
1. People aren't forced to take welfare.
2. Welfare is open to all races and ethnicities.
3. People aren't forced to work for the government in exchange for welfare.
4. The government and taxpayers do not benefit from people not working. In fact, poverty brings about even more social problems that cost money i.e. crime.
5. GM and Chrysler chose to take government assistance over bankruptcy. Ford did not. Failed businesses deserve to fail, but I wouldn't say that the government was offering to enslave them. Banks have the right to your home until you pay off the loan.
One can argue that sharecropping was a new form of slavery. One can argue that wage slavery and the exploitation of illegal immigrant labor is a new form of slavery. People aren't forced to work jobs that don't adhere to the federal minimum wage and people aren't forced to immigrate to this country, but employers are benefiting from cheap labor and so are their customers. They know the people who come to them don't have many options and they exploit that. I really wouldn't call these new forms of slavery, but they are much closer to slavery than the government giving money to people who don't work.
Quote:
And you don't think the federal government has not violated the Bill of Rights by essentially dismissing the 9th and 10th ammendments? Regardless, most of this is what I meant earlier by arguing a point(s) I am not necessarily disagreeing with. It depends upon the issue, the context, and the time.
This almost sounds as if you're avoiding the fact that states violated people's constitutional rights. You linked the Civil Rights Movement with states' rights. The states were violating constitutional rights that are not under their jurisdiction and the federal government acted appropriately in stopping them from breaking the law. They were almost 100 years late, but they finally did it.
As far as private property rights, states violated them too when they passed laws barring business owners from allowing their black and white customers to intermingle. They also violated them when they barred blacks and whites from intermingling in other social settings such as housing neighborhoods and marriage. Private property rights are separate from the states' rights issue. One can argue that private property rights were violated by the states and federal government, but I don't see how states' rights fit into this.
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.
Nobody can relate to or make any sense of what you are trying to say.
