Racist America?

[SpiritAlight 1]

"AA"?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"AA"?

I would have thought that was obvious from context.

I've used the acronym to refer to both Affirmative Action and African Americans... depending on context.

[IAMX 3,055]

The Constitution protects ALL the people, not just this group or that group. All men are created equal under this Constitution, right?

We deserve equal treatment under the law, not laws created to attempt to equal the society. We are all different individuals, both superior and inferior to each other in different ways.

Plus has any of this societal engineering actually accomplished anything but more inequality?

You're, once again, overlooking that the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause wasn't good enough to protect both women and blacks, amongst several other groups. There was a war that covered blacks being set free, then another major issue regarding Jim Crow laws and rampant racist segregation that required a law in itself because whites STILL didn't want blacks to be equal and be afforded the same rights and education. Then we needed a 19th Amendment because women were denied the right to vote. You simply need to re-evaluate your idealism about necessary steps to prevent racism and inequality. It's a bit off the mark.

Edited November 3, 2008 by SRVT

[jundp 191]

I 'm cool with everyone, but I must admit I have my stereotypes, but they tend to diminish as I get to know the "person" and not the race.

I agree wholeheartedly with this comment. Same goes for religious stereotypes too. I would be lying if I said I didn't have them in my mind. I try not to let it affect the way I am around everyone, but I admit that I do have those stereotypes.

[MrsCat 6]

I guess you missed the earlier topic:

What If Things were switched

Apparantly the bulk of the 46% remaining voters who support McCain are in fact racist. 30% is probably not so far off.

"You could easily add to this list. If these questions

reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be

as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and

minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative

qualities in another when there is a color difference."

I didn't miss the thread from yesterday. If you noticed, I was the first to respond.

I'll reiterate my sentiments from yesterday. Could someone please explain to me what that list has to do with the f*cking price of tea in China?

[SpiritAlight 1]

"AA"?

I would have thought that was obvious from context.

I've used the acronym to refer to both Affirmative Action and African Americans... depending on context.

Thanks.

Be gentle..

I am but a humble spazzzz.....

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

"AA"?

I would have thought that was obvious from context.

I've used the acronym to refer to both Affirmative Action and African Americans... depending on context.

AA also means alcoholics anonymous.

[SpiritAlight 1]

"AA"?

I would have thought that was obvious from context.

I've used the acronym to refer to both Affirmative Action and African Americans... depending on context.

AA also means alcoholics anonymous.

Now that one I knew!

[mRx 16]

The Constitution protects ALL the people, not just this group or that group. All men are created equal under this Constitution, right?

We deserve equal treatment under the law, not laws created to attempt to equal the society. We are all different individuals, both superior and inferior to each other in different ways.

Plus has any of this societal engineering actually accomplished anything but more inequality?

You're, once again, overlooking that the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause wasn't good enough to protect both women and blacks, amongst several other groups. There was a war that covered blacks being set free, then another major issue regarding Jim Crow laws and rampant racist segregation that required a law in itself because whites STILL didn't want blacks to be equal and be afforded the same rights and education. Then we needed a 19th Amendment because women were denied the right to vote. You simply need to re-evaluate your idealism about necessary steps to prevent racism and inequality. It's a bit off the mark.

The Jim Crow Laws were LAWS that were unconstitutionally passed, as they created an inequality, and the Supreme Court did it's duty to reject them. A new law didn't need to be created, just the unconstitutional ones thrown out.

The government cannot change society's mind about things through coercion and force. Do you think that when the Civil Rights Act was passed, that all of a sudden, people with racist collectivist ideology just welcomed other race's with open arms? No... But over time, the different groups began going to the same schools, stores, and lived in the same neighborhoods, and realized that they were a part of a bigger group, society. This change was brought about by social interaction, NOT some law.

Look at the gay marriage stuff going on. If the constitution is ever amended to define marriage as a religious or civil union between 2 consenting adults, then I am sure that subsequent legislation will be passed to provide unneeded preferential treatment to them.

What is so wrong with plain old equality?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

He's such a brutal speaker. If McCain wins on Tuesday (if), the nearly impossible will have happened. The US will have elected a President whose an even worse public speaker than Bush.

I'll concur with that.

[IAMX 3,055]

The Constitution protects ALL the people, not just this group or that group. All men are created equal under this Constitution, right?

We deserve equal treatment under the law, not laws created to attempt to equal the society. We are all different individuals, both superior and inferior to each other in different ways.

Plus has any of this societal engineering actually accomplished anything but more inequality?

You're, once again, overlooking that the Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause wasn't good enough to protect both women and blacks, amongst several other groups. There was a war that covered blacks being set free, then another major issue regarding Jim Crow laws and rampant racist segregation that required a law in itself because whites STILL didn't want blacks to be equal and be afforded the same rights and education. Then we needed a 19th Amendment because women were denied the right to vote. You simply need to re-evaluate your idealism about necessary steps to prevent racism and inequality. It's a bit off the mark.

The Jim Crow Laws were LAWS that were unconstitutionally passed, as they created an inequality, and the Supreme Court did it's duty to reject them. A new law didn't need to be created, just the unconstitutional ones thrown out.

It WAS legal, that's why people who practiced it were not technically criminals back then. So you can't say it was unconstitutional before it WAS unconstitutional. They can't be criminals now either because ex post facto laws aren't legal too.

The government cannot change society's mind about things through coercion and force. Do you think that when the Civil Rights Act was passed, that all of a sudden, people with racist collectivist ideology just welcomed other race's with open arms? No... But over time, the different groups began going to the same schools, stores, and lived in the same neighborhoods, and realized that they were a part of a bigger group, society. This change was brought about by social interaction, NOT some law.

Look at the gay marriage stuff going on. If the constitution is ever amended to define marriage as a religious or civil union between 2 consenting adults, then I am sure that subsequent legislation will be passed to provide unneeded preferential treatment to them.

What is so wrong with plain old equality?

These laws do not create instant acceptance. It would be folly to suggest any major Constitutional amendment was accepted by the masses right off the bat. However, in the case with blacks, they could not vote. In the case with women, they could not vote. It was very clear, and maybe it needs to be beaten into your head, that the Equal Protection Clause was not good enough to prevent these (white) people from annihilating the "God given" rights of every man, woman, gay, etc. AND, it's occurring now, too. Like you, I think it SHOULDN'T require an amendment, but shouldnt's and reality don't always match up. Hence why you need to let go some of your idealism and stop thinking today is the same as 40-150 years ago.

Edited November 3, 2008 by SRVT

[akdiver 3]

100%

[mRx 16]

It WAS legal, that's why people who practiced it were not technically criminals back then. So you can't say it was unconstitutional before it WAS unconstitutional. They can't be criminals now either because ex post facto laws aren't legal too.

It was always unconstitutional. The Supreme Court needs to dismiss such unconstitutional laws hastily. I won't deny that. Not one bit. But new laws don't need to be enacted to uphold the constitution. The constitution is the blood of our freedom. It belongs to the people. It cannot and should not be usurped by the government.

These laws do not create instant acceptance. It would be folly to suggest any major Constitutional amendment was accepted by the masses right off the bat. However, in the case with blacks, they could not vote. In the case with women, they could not vote. It was very clear, and maybe it needs to be beaten into your head, that the Equal Protection Clause was not good enough to prevent these (white) people from annihilating the "God given" rights of every man, woman, gay, etc. AND, it's occurring now, too. Like you, I think it SHOULDN'T require an amendment, but shouldnt's and reality don't always match up. Hence why you need to let go some of your idealism and stop thinking today is the same as 40-150 years ago.

The constitution was amended by Congress so that blacks and women could vote. Constitutional amendments are a completely legitimate type of reform. Laws do not need to be enacted merely to uphold the constitution. I highly doubt that was the intention of the Framers. The constitution is supreme law. The government didn't grant us these rights, those who defeated the English in battle did.

We are merely opposite sides of the same coin, SRVT. We disagree in method, but agree in principle.

[IAMX 3,055]

It WAS legal, that's why people who practiced it were not technically criminals back then. So you can't say it was unconstitutional before it WAS unconstitutional. They can't be criminals now either because ex post facto laws aren't legal too.

It was always unconstitutional. The Supreme Court needs to dismiss such unconstitutional laws hastily. I won't deny that. Not one bit. But new laws don't need to be enacted to uphold the constitution. The constitution is the blood of our freedom. It belongs to the people. It cannot and should not be usurped by the government.

These laws do not create instant acceptance. It would be folly to suggest any major Constitutional amendment was accepted by the masses right off the bat. However, in the case with blacks, they could not vote. In the case with women, they could not vote. It was very clear, and maybe it needs to be beaten into your head, that the Equal Protection Clause was not good enough to prevent these (white) people from annihilating the "God given" rights of every man, woman, gay, etc. AND, it's occurring now, too. Like you, I think it SHOULDN'T require an amendment, but shouldnt's and reality don't always match up. Hence why you need to let go some of your idealism and stop thinking today is the same as 40-150 years ago.

The constitution was amended by Congress so that blacks and women could vote. Constitutional amendments are a completely legitimate type of reform. Laws do not need to be enacted merely to uphold the constitution. I highly doubt that was the intention of the Framers. The constitution is supreme law. The government didn't grant us these rights, those who defeated the English in battle did.

We are merely opposite sides of the same coin, SRVT. We disagree in method, but agree in principle.

The framers could not conceive of every issue overlooked in the Constitution, which is why it needed to be amended, however, laws are like unofficial amendments to it. SHOULD we need laws allowing gay marriage? Well, striking down gay marriage bans should be de facto marriage. On the other hand, to prevent these constant shifts of repeatedly banning gay marriage, it needs to be Constitutionally addressed, as the Constitution does not explicitly provide these rights, which is why it's being left up to the states, and which is why it's being struck down in federal courts.

The Constitution did not explicitly provide blacks and women certain rights, so it had to be addressed. Affirmative Action SHOULD be made into law because there are always going to be people to TRY to find a way to use race as a means to prevent another race from having the same freedoms. The only difference I see is college scholarship and grants be based entirely on merit, rather than giving these extraordinarily lopsided scholarships and aid to minorities first and foremost.

Edited November 3, 2008 by SRVT

[rebeccajo 14]

"We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal"............................

But....in 1776, that didn't really mean 'all men'. Society was different and slaves were considered property. Read here about how the electoral college was created:

"The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College; taxation was only a secondary issue. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but is still generally credited with giving the pro-slavery forces disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War. For example, in the period prior to 1850, southerners held the Presidency for 50 of 62 years, and 18 of the 31 Supreme Court Justices were southerners despite the north having nearly twice the population by 1850.

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Later on, Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. In the following years, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments further clarified the intent of Reconstruction, and instructed states (who when the Constitution was crafted were regarded as nearly sovereign) to follow through.