Presidential Campaign: 2012

[gingele]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

Oh ok, I see what you are saying now..sorry for not getting that. No I dont believe that the state should be mandating for private business and as far as public buildings and organizations those laws would have been unconstitutional.

So do you think that because private businesses are, by definition, private, that they should not be subject to State laws?

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by gingele

It could be argued that a state is indirectly sanctioning that sign by NOT passing laws against such signs if they were put up simply due to the racism of the individual business owner.

However, much more direct and specific exmples of state-sanctioned discriminiation are the actual Jim Crow laws themselves - the actual State laws that MANDATED such discrimination. I listed several such examples of actual State laws a few pages back, but just in case you missed them, here they are again.

Shining examples of state-sanctioned discrimination, as per your request (laws that apparently, you think should have been left alone, since they were passed by the State, yes? No?):

No the state should not be involved in those matters. None of those should have been passed in the first place.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

No the state should not be involved in those matters. None of those should have been passed in the first place.

I agree that the States should not have passed such laws.

But they did.

In your mind, KF, without the Civil Rights Act, how could such State laws be stopped?

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

No the state should not be involved in those matters. None of those should have been passed in the first place.

The essential injustices which were state sanctioned Jim Crow laws was exactly what the passage of the Civil Rights Act addressed. As for waiting around and hoping for the best, again, I can't say it any better than MLK did in "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." It's a really good place to start if you are not familiar with the dehumanizing impact of Jim Crow laws.


Letter from Birmingham Jail - Full text

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by gingele

So do you think that because private businesses are, by definition, private, that they should not be subject to State laws?

I guess I wasnt completely clear on that. The government should have a limited fingerprint with regards to private business.

[roni]

Originally Posted by bearcat

Interesting. You don't see Huntsman making the top 4? I think it may be Romney, Gingrich, Huntsman and Paul, in that order. I reserve the right, however, to change my mind frequently.

No, I do not see him in the top 4

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by melliedee

No, specifically, strategies for ending Jim Crow laws: state sanctioned discrimination. Public intellectuals have been speaking out against it since 1865. Their imagination was limitless. The writings of the Reconstruction to the 60s are some of our most moving, poetic, political arguments. Arguments that prompted the Civil Right Act into fruition. Since you mention MLK, you do realize that that is exactly what he was marching about, don't you? The government putting an end to state sanctioned discrimination in places like Alabama?

I agree. But getting the masses to vote to change things is a long hard struggle. I bet to many people back then. The issue didn't really cross their mi
nds. Just like another issue.

[roni]

McConnell outlined a possible Republican strategy that acknowledges Obama inherited a tough financial situation but then made it worse. McConnell said that if voters agree, Obama will lose in November. If not, Obama will win a second term.

A strategy that requires voter to agree with a lie, with a lie that the data do not support.

Good plan Mitch, good plan.

Explains why the Republicans have been doing their best to make it worse.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/new...omy_blame.html

[gingele]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

I guess I wasnt completely clear on that. The government should have a limited fingerprint with regards to private business.

OK. And I take it that you do not think that the "limited fingerprint" should cover discriminatory practices by private businesses, correct?

The State should have no say in the matter if you post a "whites only" want ad, or refuse to serve non-whites, so long as you are a private business.

[gingele]

Originally Posted by STOGEY

I agree. But getting the masses to vote to change things is a long hard struggle. I bet to many people back then. The issue didn't really cross their mi
nds. Just like another issue.

That's pretty funny because one of the main purposes of the Jim Crow laws was to prevent minorities from voting in the first place. So yeah, you could say that to get people to vote to change things is a struggle - especially if you were black and lived in the south!

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by roni

A strategy that requires voter to agree with a lie, with a lie that the data do not support.

Good plan Mitch, good plan.

Explains why the Republicans have been doing their best to make it worse.

RealClearPolitics - Politics - Jan 04, 2012 - McConnell pinning GOP win on economy blame

Nice try but Democrats had 100% control for 2 yrs. and couldn't even pass a budget..... the only reason things have at least bottomed out or risen slightly is because Republicans have slowed the unfettered wasteful spending and printing by Obama and the Democrats for the past yr and gave some sense of stability to the business community that they wont be taxed and reguated out of business.....

and when the Supreme Court slaps the shit out of Obama this summer and finds The Obamacare mandate unconstitutional, it will show the American voter just how out of step and out of touch with American values this Administration is and has been...

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by gingele

OK. And I take it that you do not think that the "limited fingerprint" should cover discriminatory practices by private businesses, correct?

The State should have no say in the matter if you post a "whites only" want ad, or refuse to serve non-whites, so long as you are a private business.

Correct and if Blacks what to have a Black Miss America or Black College fund or NAACP or ..


Oh ya they already have those
.... So you would say those aren't discriminating against whites ???

[roni]

That is grossly inappropriate language to describe the workings of the Supreme Court. It also reflects your hope about the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

I know that you hope that millions of Americans can again start getting screwed by insurance companies. I do not understand why you hope that, though.

[roni]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

Correct and if Blacks what to have a Black Miss America or Black College fund or NAACP or ..


Oh ya they already have those
.... So you would say those aren't discriminating against whites ???

Oh yes. White Americans are probably the most discriminated group in America :jo ker:

[gingele]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

Correct and if Blacks what to have a Black Miss America or Black College fund or NAACP or ..


Oh ya they already have those
.... So you would say those aren't discriminating against whites ???

I'm not surprised by your response, DH. Your State has a fine tradition of Separate but Equal, passing Jim Crow laws up to 1959.

And yet you are clueless about the reason for the existence of such things as the NAACP.

Jim Crow Laws - Arkansas