So, answer me this, what would have happened in the 1960s ALABAMA & MISSISSIPPI had the Federal government not intervened to PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS of African-Americans? What if they'd just said, "Aw, hell...it's states' rights! States er more importan' than them thar Negroes!" Please tell me. :toetap:
See the main therory we're currently working on is that we've come far enough as a culture that states won't start segregating schools and water fountains again.
LOL!!! Dude, you should live here. If they could in some of these Southern states, they WOULD do some horrible things to Mexicans, blacks and gays. And all in the name of Jesus. Do I have "faith" in these people? Hell no. Because they are A DETRIMENT TO HUMANITY ITSELF. They need to open their eyes and see that we are ALL equal and if it takes the Federal government making it so to protect human rights, then so be it. I am surprised George W. Bush has allowed civil rights to continue, because he sure hasn't allowed civil liberties to. And Ron(ald) Reagan Paul has stated that ABORTION is the decision of a group of old white men (i.e. States) and not the right of a woman. He also voted to "rescue" the Pledge from having "Under God" removed to make it equal for atheists (even though 'Under God' was PLACED in the Pledge in the 1950s).
Well now, as one who was "there" in Alabama during that time, I can tell you change was ready to happen anyway. White people were beginning to have reservations about keeping black people one level below them. I think that Christianity had finally crept into this pattern of thought that had been formed a hundred years back. People woke up to the fact it was morally wrong. We had TV. Still a new product in that day. We were able to see how other people lived. This is also the instrument that was used to apply pressure upon the south to change. We could "see" ourselves on TV. And compared to modern thought, we were backward by comparison. I think the sense of shame was the true catalyst for change. x
I dunno what part of the south you live in libertine or what sort of people your life revolves around or that you associate with in order to come up with such horrible awful stories of the rampant racism ... but i can tell you matter of factly ,rascism in the north east if far worse than anything i have seen down here roaming the tristate area over the last 5 years .... n this coming from one that currently lives where the kkk rallies come......
LOL!!! Stop ignoring the question, people! You know the answer, don't you? It is a FACT that the majority of the South (a.k.a. The Bible Belt) is what got BUSH elected. It is a FACT that the majority of the South (and Rocky Mountain States as well) are VEHEMENTLY SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE and elected Republicans constantly. These "Red States" are the same ones who push the SAME "values" shared by RONALD REAGAN & RON PAUL -- full of EVANGELICAL RIGHT-WINGERS. Not my opinion, a FACT. Go back and LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF ELECTIONS. Fucking George Wallace? Ronald Reagan? George Bush? The South was mainly Democrat UNTIL LBJ (a Democrat) fought for Civil Rights, and then it was BARRY GOLDWATER TIME, and George Wallace. The fact of the matter is that isn't BEING FROM THE SOUTH necessarily (cause I am from the South), but the fact that SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES dominate these areas and they always push the SAME IDEOLOGIES just disguised in a different garb. Saxby Chambliss? Newt Gingrich? Shit, have you seen the IDIOTS our neighbors put into office to "represent" US? Wonder why the "States' Rights" agenda is at the PINNACLE Of White Separatism? And why these groups always support this agenda? When they speak of States' rights, they aren't speaking of where to build a highway. They are speaking of a States' right to make CIVIL RIGHT/CIVIL LIBERTIES decision OVER that of the higher calling (i.e. HUMAN RIGHTS).
I agree, I don't know what part of the South that Libertine lives in, but the part that I live in, Houston, for example, has had a black mayor, police chiefs, fire chiefs, black members of Congress that have been very prominent-this part of the country is not run just by a bunch of old white guys. There's no going back the the Old Days-sorry, they're gone and buried. And while you're busy bashing Christianity, it just so happens that the people that were at the forefront of the civil rights movement were mostly Protestant ministers-what do you think Martin Luther King was, an atheist? The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., remember? I could name a lot more of those people, but I'm sure you know who they are. Christianity teaches that we're supposed to love one another, and doesn't even recognize the whole concept of race-that's something people made up. While it's true that State's Rights was a code word that was used by segregationists to justify their pracitces, there is also a perfectly legitimate understanding of State's Rights as well. Today, the federal government coerces the states, either with money or legislation, to do things their way. A number of years back it did that with the drinking age, and it does it in countless other way, including funneling tons of money to the states for the War On Drugs and making sure its spent the way the feds want it to. If it wasn't for this huge amount of money that the feds funnel to the states for this purpose, the states wouldn't be so eager to put such a big percentage of the population in jail for drugs, which is really being paid for by federal money funnelled to the states. Also, if the income tax was abolished (which, by the way, was originally prohibited by the Constitution) the federal governemnt would have to be a lot more careful about how it spends its money, instead of throwing huge amounts of money at waging unjust wars and regulating our lives to death. Do you really think that it spends so much money 'helping people'? Please, spare me. It certainly doesn't.
Here's the simple fact. DOES A WOMAN'S WOMB BELONG TO HER OR THE FUCKING STATE? Answer that? When was the last time a STATE fell in love and decided whom it wanted to marry? These are all "States' Rights" that THESE PARTICULAR advocates (i.e. Ron Paul) are pushing. The POINT OF THIS WHOLE POST (before it was DERAILED) was that allowing STATES to make CIVIL RIGHTS and CIVIL LIBERTIES' decisions is a slipperly slope to bad crazy shit like: Two gay males being "married" in one state, and arrested in another for sleeping together. Does it happen? COULD it? Who knows with the NUTS some of our people elect? The STATES do NOT need THAT much power.
Boy do you have blinders on! We now have the Patriot Act, and Homeland Security and all the Executives orders that infringe on our rights and you actually believe the feds will protect our rights. When? While they are wiretapping our phones and internet connections, while we are arrested for terrorism without legal recourse? We all saw and continue to see how they ran to the rescue of poor blacks after Katrina. The Fed's are selling our national sovereignty in the SPP, and it's rare that you can even find one of them that acknowledges knowledge of it. But several states have passed legislation against it's powers. What has Washington done about it? http://www.stopthenau.org/Current_Activities.htm Last I checked the White House didn't have a womb either. Women have always made their own choices, and will in the future. Government will never impede that. They just like to label some of them illegal when it seems it can buy them votes. Gays have always existed and will continue to exist without either the state or feds passing one law. How equal do you think Muslims in the US feel right now?
Asking a group of people if "the state has a whomb and is it the states right to tell you what to do with it" has about as much strength as wet toilet paper. So your arguement is that the state has no say in anything we own? So it should be okay for people with deadly viruses that are airborn transfer to freely roam around becuase "its there virus" There is far better angles to argue your point and man I thought you could do it. As for states at least at the state level it gives you a chance of 50 other places that might say yes,a chance to appeal it at the federal level if needed and last but least a great abiltiy to vote out said lawmakers and overturn the law. I am against laws on class 3 weapons, think if they are good enough for my goverment to have and wave freely then why not me. Instead you have to file for a special permit, pay a hefty tax per firearm and sign that no search warrant is needed to enter your home. So is it a states rights or yours the answere is simple.... Your Right to choose anything is always there, just understand that it may not be the legal Right. If a law comes into play that is against the populations majority thoughts then use your power to change it.
Isn't that exactly what happened when AIDS/HIV first hit the US? What did either States or the Federal Government do to stem the spread? What about contaminated consumer products entering this country?
Remember you can only get aids through intimate contact, just ask the people who blocked quarantine of such cases becuase it infringed on the rights of those with the disease. Hmm guess TB and such are different.
Here is my point: States are infinitely more answerable to the people than the federal government. You actually elect your states officials, and they are people that actually live in your state.... those are the people who should have power... those that are answerable to the people they serve, and ONLY the people they serve. The president cannot be ousted even if millions upon millions wish for him to spontaneously combust... those millions of people must suffer because a small fraction of the country that votes voted for him... the people in california can't have medicinal marijuana WHICH THEY VOTED FOR because the federal government doesn't allow for it. How is that acceptable? I wont even get into corruption.. etc etc... hand the power to the states and hand the power to the PEOPLE.
Libertine: you realize that every time you post you make REAL social progressives lose credibility by the truckload? All you do is repeat the same tired lines and then accuse everybody else of not answering your questions (which they did, but of course, not the same answer you'd like). I am pro-civil rights as anybody so would you do the movement a favor and be quiet (or at least stop ranting nonsensically {I would never dream of limiting your freedom of expression})
Go jump off your own bridge, pal. I have the right to express my opinions and issue statements of fact like everyone else. Why don't you social "progressives" actually agree with socially progressive statements? Why? Because you are a PSEUDO-progressive and, in actuality, you're probably a libertarian pretending to be an offended social progressive. :nopity:
This is what makes all this great. A group of people that seem to be like minded but have such different views. Thankfully we all have the rights to express our opinions, well at least for now.
In fact they are very different. What was strange in the beginning with AIDS, was we supposedly didn't know how it was transmitted. It seems some people did, why is that?
the fact that is was primarily transmitted through gay men in bath-houses and IV drug users may have been a clue for the brighter scientists.
It acceptable for the same reason that the people of Alabama can't get the segregated schools that THEY voted for. States rights, like any good sword, cuts both ways.
