Clarify This For Me, Ee. What's Wrong With Civil Rights?

[meangreendork]

So you made a comment about how you don't like how the government decided it was good for all of us in terms of civil rights. How about you expand upon that for me? I mean, I'm iffy on affirmative action - if you don't make the grade, or if you don't have the qualifications, or if your company doesn't price out to someone's liking, you don't get the job/college acceptance/contract. I know why affirmative action should be around, but I also know it's a flawed system that's only treating a symptom of both needless political correctness and on the opposite side, discrimination.

But that's different from civil rights. So help me out with this, will you? Both suffrage and civil right in general would probably have taken place without a general sweep from the federal government, but I do believe it would've been a far slower process.

Edited June 16, 2009 by meangreendork

[CMJ]

Some people at the time also claimed that the Courts de-segregating the South were "activist." Does that ring a bell?

I'm just sayin'.

Edited June 16, 2009 by CMJ

[meangreendork]

Some people at the time also claimed that the Courts segregating the South were "activist." Does that ring a bell?

I'm just sayin'.

Yeah, it does. And thanks.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---I am for civil rights... but not some of the extreme ideas now that come from it. My grandmother was never allowed to vote. She died in 1920 in the world wide flu pandemic. She would have been able to vote later that year. My Mother was not allowed to serve on a jury until the 1970's... they were all male until about then. Unbelievable during the early 60's she tried to check on the family bank balance after making a deposit (she was working) and the bank would not let her (her name was on the account, but she was female) . They wanted to call my father to get his approval. She went ballistic. Blacks could not eat in most restaurants and some of the kids in my high school class could not attend any Southwest Conference schools or even the Baptist College in my home town. Yes I am for civil rights... of course all of the above changes were considered liberal ideas at the time.

--- If you did not live through that, then you likely just don't understand how it once was. .... unfortunately some don't get it and make fun of it and yell "Liberal"....when the term ""civil rights" is used.... They don't realize how things have changed....and why. Of course my age group was sent to Nam without being old enough to vote... (not 21) and we could not do business including it was difficult to buy a car without a parental signature even if we were out of high school and on our own. .

--- I am not for the all the affirmative action now. Hire the best person and ignore race or gender. Those days are gone... Stand on your own now, enough time has passed.

--- Financially I am a conservative.. that is why I detest Bush doubling the debt and removing financial controls that caused this mess. But on peoples rights, people deserve to be treated fairly.

--- I also support being honest....Fox said Obama was Islamic (he had a crazy Christian minister). Fox said he took the oath of office on the Koran (he used a Bible), Fox said he attended a Medrasa.. (not true) , Fox said he would not say the Pledge of Allegiance (he does, and had even led it in the Senate), They have said Gore claimed to invent the Internet (he didn't but he did support and sponcer the bill that put the internet into the public domian instead of only being a government communication system)...... Fox even pictured Bush as a financial conservative (are you kidding me?, note his budgets and the national debt) Now you understand why I can not stand Fox.. no credibiity....... Feel free to check all that info.... Fox won't like you just as they detest the mainstream media or college profs because we tend to check facts and contradict their crazy comments. I teach in a college (math, not a socialistic subject) . I am not very gullible and don't believe everything that I hear....and I don't care who said it.

Edited June 16, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Go ahead Fox lovers and trash me on the above statement... but remember who is largely responsible for the internet to be put into the public domain that you are trashing me on. The next time you hear liberall remember in 1900 when women could not vote, had few other rights, blacks were forbidden to go many places, 21 was considered an adult and you could be drafted to die for your country but not vote. Oddly I do not consider myself a liberal... at least not in today's definition. I support the old definition of marraige and a lot other conservative things.... including don't tax less and spend more for another.

Edited June 16, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Quoner]

---Go ahead Fox lovers and trash me on the above statement... but remember who is largely responsible for the internet to be put into the public domain that you are trashing me on. The next time you hear liberal remember 1900 when women could not vote, had few other rights, blacks were forbidden to go many places, 21 was considered an adult and you could be drafted to die for your country but not vote. Oddly I do not consider myself a liberal... at least not in todays definition.

No one responded for two hours - you can at least try to bait them once your reply doesn't end the thread.

If you look at the title, this is a question to one poster and one poster only. And he's not a liberal.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

No one responded for two hours - you can at least try to bait them once your reply doesn't end the thread.

If you look at the title, this is a question to one poster and one poster only. And he's not a liberal.

--Private messages aren't posted publicly. Just saw an opportunity to clarify beliefs and tell folks how it once was.. Some here think Liberal is an awful word. On some issues.. maybe so... but not in general. Some here think Fox slaming civil rights constantly is great... we are who we are because of changes (once called liberal ideas) .

[Rudy]

Some here think Liberal is an awful word.

Same for the word "conservative".

[Green Guy Bass]

Same for the word "conservative".

I don't think the term 'conservative' is seen as a dirty word by most of the liberals here. Personally I understand the principle meaing of the word, just like I understand the meaning of liberal. Just about everyone here does. There is not one of us who doesn't have both kinds of ideas about certain things, even though FF-Rick really tries to make it seem that he does. The vocal and pissed off right-wingers in this place have villanized the term 'liberal' in recent weeks. That is frustrating because we are all Americans with slightly different ideas, and it is probably shocking to see how big of a percent of issues we probably all agree upon. Do I get pissed off and voice my opinion at times when I hear some spewing hateful things, views I vehemently oppose, or misguided nonsense? Sure. But sometimes we should all look up and realize that we are all on the same team.

Also I think it would help that some of here would not post outrageously biased articles from uber-conservative or crazy left leaning blogs and websites. That is just me, I am sure it makes some feel better to do it, and it makes the life-drain that is most of these discussions continue so we can have some content. So very beaten down by everything I read here these days outside of Ranger talk.

[meangreendork]

Same for the word "conservative".

It's funny since one can be a mix of different things. Personally, and under most circumstances, I'm a social liberal, fiscal conservative, with a preference for a strong military and smart diplomacy. I look at the current stimulus package the same way I did the start of the 2nd Gulf War, which is to say, "I hope they know what they're doing. This can turn out really well, or it can go horribly wrong." and, "I hope they know something I don't because this is a huge gamble."

[emmitt01]

Those days are gone... Stand on your own now, enough time has passed.

As a black man in America I wish so so so much that this were true. We ALL know, though, that it isn't. Not an argument for affirmative-action, don't want to open that pandora's box, just noting that those days are not completely "gone."

[UNT90]

As a black man in America I wish so so so much that this were true. We ALL know, though, that it isn't. Not an argument for affirmative-action, don't want to open that pandora's box, just noting that those days are not completely "gone."

The problem with affirmative action is that now reverse discrimination is prevelant in the public sector, while discrimination somewhat still remains in the private sector. I don't think anyone accepts this as balanced.

It all comes down to this: Work your tail off, out perform the other guy, and if people at your organization don't appreciate it, another organization will.

[UNTFan23]

The problem with affirmative action is that now reverse discrimination is prevelant in the public sector, while discrimination somewhat still remains in the private sector. I don't think anyone accepts this as balanced.

It all comes down to this: Work your tail off, out perform the other guy, and if people at your organization don't appreciate it, another organization will.

In my opinion, discrimination is discrimination, even if you are a white male.

[emmitt01]

The problem with affirmative action is that now reverse discrimination is prevelant in the public sector, while discrimination somewhat still remains in the private sector. I don't think anyone accepts this as balanced.

It all comes down to this: Work your tail off, out perform the other guy, and if people at your organization don't appreciate it, another organization will.

Wow. I put the "not an argument for affirmative-action" portion of my post in there for a few reasons. First, so as not to make my post seem like a pro affirmative-action one (though I think putting forth that discrimination still "somewhat exists" is silly on face and naive). Second, and perhaps more importantly, I didn't want to accidentally bait anyone into laying out for me the white man's burden or how deeply skewed the hiring practices of American companies now so clearly are in the favor of minorities. It's a wonder a white guy ever gets a job these days.

Also, I have a question about this sentence:

if people at your organization don't appreciate it, another organization will.

Are you suggesting, then, that if you are white and work as a copy boy for BET, and you then apply for a job as a news anchor at BET...are turned down because you don't fit their "image"...but then get a job on the WB that all is well with the world? This is the kind of, to borrow your very limited term, "somewhat" discriminatory practice that still occurs day in and day out in America...and cuts both ways. Or should I say multiple ways when you consider that it also cuts along lines of gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. I won't suggest that affirmative-action is the solution, hell it's often the co-defendant, but let's not marginalize what still occurs even in todays "enlightened" American society.

Edited June 17, 2009 by emmitt01

[eulessismore]

I guess the problem I see generally (and yes, I've been guilty of it, and yes, lately) is that those from either side of any polarizing argument use such a broad brush when discussing any issue, that any opinion expressed that is closer to the center, or recognizes valid points on either side, or that within a larger topic, that one can have different opinions on either side of its various aspects. I, as a white dude who likes to hang with folks of various racial, ethnic, religious, or whatever defined group, felt oppressed by the prevailing Southern bias against minorities, and the whites who befriended them, notably before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm not sure I agree with all parts of said act, but I did, and still do agree with the "Public Accommodations" part; it was ridiculous, in the age of the Interstate Highways, that blacks could only go to certain parts of almost any part of the Southern United States to eat, use the restroom, or even get a drink of water from a fountain. And that's only taking the narrow view of personal and economic necessities; it would take a long time to discuss the moral and ethical implications of Jim Crow segregation. I have to say that I think it's disingenuous, at best, to throw the whole question of the Civil Rights Laws into one part of an anti-liberalism rant. There may be more nuance to the employment aspect, but how can segregation of public facilities, especially tax supported, be defended?

Dwayne Taylor

[UNTflyer]

Fox said Obama was Islamic (he had a crazy Christian minister).

No, they didn't.

Fox said he took the oath of office on the Koran (he used a Bible),

No, they didn't.

Fox said he attended a Medrasa.. (not true) ,

No, they didn't.

Fox said he would not say the Pledge of Allegiance (he does, and had even led it in the Senate),

No, they didn't.

They have said Gore claimed to invent the Internet (he didn't but he did support and sponcer the bill that put the internet into the public domian instead of only being a government communication system)......

No, they didn't.

Fox even pictured Bush as a financial conservative

No, they didn't.

--- I also support being honest....

Well, so much for that.

I think you are confusing Fox News with "crazy internet rumors I got in my inbox"

Edited June 17, 2009 by UNTflyer

[UNT90]

Wow. I put the "not an argument for affirmative-action" portion of my post in there for a few reasons. First, so as not to make my post seem like a pro affirmative-action one (though I think putting forth that discrimination still "somewhat exists" is silly on face and naive). Second, and perhaps more importantly, I didn't want to accidentally bait anyone into laying out for me the white man's burden or how deeply skewed the hiring practices of American companies now so clearly are in the favor of minorities. It's a wonder a white guy ever gets a job these days.

Also, I have a question about this sentence:

Are you suggesting, then, that if you are white and work as a copy boy for BET, and you then apply for a job as a news anchor at BET...are turned down because you don't fit their "image"...but then get a job on the WB that all is well with the world? This is the kind of, to borrow your very limited term, "somewhat" discriminatory practice that still occurs day in and day out in America...and cuts both ways. Or should I say multiple ways when you consider that it also cuts along lines of gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc. I won't suggest that affirmative-action is the solution, hell it's often the co-defendant, but let's not marginalize what still occurs even in todays "enlightened" American society.

Dude. Did you not see that I was agreeing with you? You are the one that capitalized ALL, therefore I was making the point that all on this board could have been discriminated against.

And the second point was to not worry about things that you can't control. If you do your job, and do it better than most others, you will be rewarded, either by your organization or another. If you get caught up in all the bs, it does you no good and most likely effects your job performance.

[UNTflyer]

Emmitt, while our country is far from a happy box of Crayola crayons living in harmony, I would point out that you are a black man with a gun and a badge married to a white woman in Dallas, Texas. This country has come a long, long way.

And UNT90, we've come a long way BECAUSE leaders of our government insisted that civil rights apply to everyone. And we still have a long, long way to go.

The problem today is twofold - we still have white country club males who won't hire outside their ideal White Anglo Saxon Protestant class. And we have black leaders who blame everything bad that happens within the American black culture on The White Man.

A pox on both their houses. In my current position, I have hired a black man, a latino man, an asian woman, a gay man, and an uber-liberal WASP male. In each case, they were the most qualified person to apply for the job. Government wasn't needed to get them their jobs.

[EagleD]

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

Well, so much for that.

I think you are confusing Fox News with "crazy internet rumors I got in my inbox"

Have you ever watched the friendly friends at "FOX and friends"? Steve Deucey says each one of those things on like an hour rotation.

[UNTflyer]

Have you ever watched the friendly friends at "FOX and friends"? Steve Deucey says each one of those things on like an hour rotation.

No, I work.

Edited June 17, 2009 by UNTflyer

[EagleD]

No, I work.

Good. The less FOX News you watch, the better. Unfortunately I have to watch it. It's part of MY job.

[UNTflyer]

Good. The less FOX News you watch, the better. Unfortunately I have to watch it. It's part of MY job.

I don't watch any news on television except for local news. I prefer to read or listen to radio.

[Rudy]

IVe said this forever, when it comes to employment, it should be the best PERSON for the job. It doesnt just apply to race either. When I worked at JC Penny's, a woman could sell men's clothes, but a man could not sell women's clothes. He could be a hell of a salesperson, and be the next Ralph Lauren, but he can't apply his skill to women's clothing, no matter how much money he could make the store. When I was in high school, I was a teachers aide at an elementary, and I worked with pre-k thru 2nd grades. the teacher told me not to hug the kids (keep in mind that children that age crave attention, and use hugs as a form or trust, comfort, and positive reinforcement). Yet that female teacher would give male students the biggest damn bear hug you've ever seen. Its a double standard and reverse discrimination is still discrimination. Discrimination in any form is wrong.

[UNT90]

And UNT90, we've come a long way BECAUSE leaders of our government insisted that civil rights apply to everyone. And we still have a long, long way to go.

Ok??? All I did was agree with Emmitt and add a statement pertaining to today's work environment.

[eulesseagle]

I still stand by my statement that the Civil Rights Act of 'sixty four'/ Affirmative Action is no longer needed.

1. Do I agree that these measures were needed at the time of implementation? yes. however, one can argue that these very same results would have happened by natural progression as they had been. How much more time would have been needed?? don't know ... it is hypothetical. one can argue a couple of years to never depending upon your point of view.

2. Do I think that these measures are still needed? no. 45 years has been enough time to implement these policies. Are most people color blind today? most certainly. Are there still mental midgets that, given the opportunity, will only hire a person of color of "their" own choosing? of course and always will be. Why? because there will always be racism. Government can not legislate an individuals bigotry away. That is why there is dr. phil and oprah.

3. If I were in a position to take advantage of these measures would I? heck yes I would. Why? $$$$. Have I taken advantage of government assistance? yep....the G.I. Bill.

4. Will these measures "ever" go away?? no. Why? Because, generally speaking, the democats need the people who rely on the civil rights measures, as their core voting base, as much as the republicans need the christian conservative vote as their core voting base. Here is the rub.....both sides get played like some first timer at a gentleman's club. These measures have, generally, placed the "hyphen" amongst all Americans where that "hyphen" was never present in the past. This has been the greatest dis-service of the act of sixty four. The "hyphen" --Balcanizes-- Americans which, in turn, creates chaos amongst the races. This choas creates votes amongst party lines which creates additional governmental power/contol amongst the parties. Dudes, this plan was written over a hundred years ago by Marx and Engles and has been played out many times in different countries. Read the "Communist Manifesto" and "Das Capital" and find out for yourselves. Don't let the government play you.

5. Is there equality in America today? sure there is and we are all products of these freedoms. Is there still inequality?? see #2.

6. Has my main thesis, on this issue, really been with race or government?? It has "always" been with government dividing the races. It is the government that sows the seeds of discontent by mandating "balcanized" special rights to the plethora of racial/social/gender/ etc etc etc groups and reaps the benefit of their votes. I do believe that man should be able to stand on his own qualifications, regardless of r/s/g etc etc etc to get a job without the help of a crutch. However, as long as that crutch is available....be it job or socail benefits....people will rely on this "candy" .... and vote for the "candy man" who provides the most candy. IMHO, these generous social benefits that have been provided by the government, have done more harm than good to the people who are "hooked" on them. These people live in true socialism(be it their fault or not) while others strive in a social-capitalist struture that is fast becoming more socailistic through the takeover of our core economic system.