Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Aug 29, 2013.
First, I think you should go back and read the quotes....
They aren't from 50 years ago...Buckley affirmed these positions through his death in the 80's.
The other conservatives who created the movement are alive & well today.
Some of them are running for POTUS in the republican party as we speak.
So your argument that its 50 years old it doesn't matter anymore is wrong.
By your logic, the constitution is older than 50 years should it be ignored too?
Your "analysis" of the political divide is wrong also.
You're right it isn't 1963.
One would have to understand where the beliefs that underlie today's political divide resided in 1963. I don't know how many times you have to be told that the 60's southern democrat is today's southern republican conservative.
Don't want to believe it....fine.
What can white people do?
Have a change of heart.
Because the scenario you advocated....blacks economically boycotting those companies actually occurred.
And guess what?
The law was enforced.
So what exactly are you complaining about?
No. That would violate the constitution
Actually, yes. One example; people can and do forbid guns on their property.
Slavery is unconstitutional
And that wasn't the basis for having separate water fountains, bathrooms, etc.
There wasn't a preconceived negative opinion of blacks in this country?
What was the basis of those ideas?
What you conveniently "left out" is when those opinions deny the rights afforded to every citizen in practice & law.
Were Jim Crow laws racist?
Was apartheid racist?
Newsflash, and so was the denial of service based on race found to be unconstitutional.
So this is nothing more than a discussion of which one you want to honor and which one you don't.
I'm doing no such thing....
If you acknowledge that progress has been made...
How did it occur?
With conservatives like Buckley?
I'm not using a litmus test of the past to judge the present.
These are conservative positions today.
And by the look of some of the responses in this thread the support for segregation is alive and well today.
So what's your point then? Conservatives are inherently racist? Fine, you win. (R) = Racist. (D) = Classic White-Hat good guy. Happy now?
Of course, you ignore the fact that a lot of liberals (fiscally speaking) of that period were against the CRA and for clearly more racist/silly reasons than Buckley. So, yes, it is kind of irrelevant to today's political scene. And, yes, I'm fully aware of the Southern Strategy and the demographic shift in the parties.
Oh, have a change of heart. Nice. Nice and ambiguous, that is. Maybe you could elaborate some on that point. What kind of actionable things would you like to see as a result of this "change of heart?" Specifics please.
As for the CRA, I'm not against it. I understand on an intellectual level the points Buckley made, but in that climate I'm not sure that was the correct course. Certainly, I think the CRA has had a lot of positive impact, but I'm not sure it really is needed in many cases any more.
I mean, if you want to paste "Whites Only" signs in your restaurant window, have at it. . . and all that comes with it. Suicidal is the only word I can think of to describe that kind of behavior in today's business world.
Sadly, what we don't have are honest and frank debates about exactly what needs to happen to get past racism as opposed to "poke-the-lion" posts threads like this whose only goal, it seems, is to provoke and incite.
I didn't leave out anything. I answered the question. Period.
You, AGAIN, are the one extrapolating a bunch of crap out of it. So, again, what is your point with the OP and this thread?
What you conveniently ignore is that today isn't 1963. In case you haven't noticed, and thanks to the CRA and other actions, there is no codified racism any more. So, AGAIN, what is your point?
He has an Urban Meyer quote in his sig line and you ask this question???
996 - the idea that is trying to be communicated is that in a free society people should be able to associate with and do business with whomever they choose. As soon as the govt forces you to do business with somebody they are violating your rights, just the same as they'd be violating your rights if they forced you to have somebody over for dinner, who you didn't want to associate with.
That said, this country was built on hundreds of years of horrendous rights violations, which were ongoing when the CRA was passed. The CRA was clearly needed, because white folk were clearly happy to continue the Jim Crow / apartheid society we had created... and in fact many white folks fought viciously to maintain it.
Fifty years later, while there is still racism, particularly in the execution of our LEO and "justice system", I think everyone in this country has all the opportunity they need to be successful.
Things will not really change for the bulk of low income minorities, until they change themselves... what they value and how they live. It has to start with embracing responsibility and education. There's way too many single moms having kids before they even know how to take care of themselves. By the time these kids get to school they are already way behind kids from educated two parent households, and most of them never catch up.
I also believe in schools doing what they can to help promote success. In several Oakland schools we have a mentoring program for at risk AA males, to give them male role models they can relate to, encourage them to be responsible for their futures and teach them how to relate appropriately to teachers. Basically, we're putting dads in schools, for kids who don't have effective parenting at home.
But I honestly don't believe the govt can solve this problem. The people in local communities need to solve this problem, and AA leaders (and Latino too) need to demand that their community members step up.
Of course. That is the whole point. We are REQUIRED to honor basic enumerated rights, even on private property. Life and Liberty, to be exact. Slavery violates that.
The SCOTUS has been a bit schizophrenic with regards to property ownership on others.
Love how you summarize to incorrect conclusions and then declare yourself the "winner"...nice way to win debates with yourself.
The thread was about the founding thinkers of conservatives, who are alive and well today, and what true "conservative" thoughts & beliefs are and from where they are formed.
On what a racist should do...
Adults need someone to tell them how to act right?
When it comes to denials of your rights why should you have to wait on anything to recognize them?
You're looking for "actionable" things to improve the situation?
Enforce the constitution.
Rep if I could
Equal Protection clause protects equal opportunity under the law.
How is it equal opportunity when denied service based on race?
well then that's true of everything, isn't it? no one should ever criticize Democrats, Republican, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, gays, straights ... anyone because hey, someone on the other side did something once ....
Barry Goldwater? The Goldwater who wrote in a 1960 book that he agreed with SCOTUS' anti-segregation aims in Brown vs. Board of Education? The Goldwater who voluntarily desegregated his family's department stores, and led the desegregation of a number of municipal and state institutions in AZ? Yes, absolutely, he was an enemy of everything MLK stood for! LOL
This simply isn't true.
Buckley did not die until in 2008, and his views on racial issues had changed - or as BHO might say, evolved - long before then.
As a quick reference, this from a 2008 Q&A with Sam Tanenhaus, a NYT editor (and thus, I hope, a sufficiently liberal commentator) who was then writing a Buckley biography:
There is no doubt that Buckley published some ugly racial stuff decades ago. But people change, and he changed.
Did it for you. Much more articulate than this ol racist conservative could ever be.:wink:
Excellent post. Re. the bolded. One actionable thing we can do moving forward is make the punishments for crack and powder cocaine the same. That is clearly a classist policy (perhaps racist) that, IMO, unfairly effects poor people who are no more guilty than their wealthier counterparts.
WTF are you talking about? Seriously. What is this diarrhea you keep typing?
1. I declared YOU the winner. Apparently that's not good enough.
2. (R)/Conservatives = Bad. (D)/Liberals/Progressives = Good. Is this not the basic premise of the post? Buckley, the founder, was racist, thus all who follow his philosophy are racist. How else would you have me interpret this (bolded) and the rest of your posts, including the OP?
The rest of your post is just a bunch of ambiguous - again, convenient for political attacks on political opposition - nonsense.
So, where am I wrong? Is this not the point you are trying to make? If not, then what is your freakin' point?