This is the dumbest ish I've read all day. Come live here, in Arizona, and tell me the same thing. Read through the entire bill while you're at it.
If a policy benefits one or more races then it discriminates against all other races. That is common sense.
It's common sense that if you help elevate people who have been historically and are still discriminated against because of their race, it is beneficial to all races.
and yet you support non-lawyers getting into congress to support diversity...strange that you would take this argument now. which is it - are you merit based or do you see value in diversity? it seems that you have an anti-liberal bias from your posts. which is fine, but then you are just another basso / bigtexx.
I support non-legal discrimination based on occupational history. I never support discrimination based on race. Do you not see a difference between the two?
This is where your reading comprehension fails you. I already said that I was aware of the racist history of the literacy test and the poll tax. Regardless of the history of such policies, there is nothing inherently racist TODAY behind requiring that someone who is going to elect the representatives to our government be able to read. There is nothing inherently racist about saying people who want a say in this country's government should pay $15. There is nothing inherently racist in saying that if people want a say in this country's government they should sign up to defend it. None of those propositions have anything to do with race. Black people (and historically these were directed against black people) are not inherently less likely to be able to read, or to have $15, or to serve in the military. You would think that since I was the only one that mentioned a poll tax that you would realize I know something about the history of the poll tax. No, treating everyone the same regardless of skin color is the opposite of racism. Conveniently for my argument, that is also the opposite of Affirmative Action. Giving one group an advantage based on the color of their skin is the very definition of racism. That they are trying to adjust for an historical wrong does not change that, it just gives their racism an altruistic bent. If you have to parse things at this level, it is a pretty safe bet that you have a weak argument. Has "CP" ever espoused a racially discriminatory policy? Did he do so in the campaign during which he was supported by the Tea Party? If not, I would not feel right judging his supporters based solely on some emails he sent. Perhaps his supporters liked his policy statements. Maybe they liked his baseball bat photo ops. If the best evidence you have that the Tea Party is racist is some private emails sent by one of their supported candidates, you have very little evidence indeed. I know, that is why I posted it. No, that is laissez-aire. If I want to run a sports bar that doesn't allow Jazz fans, that should be up to me. The government should have no input into that decision. Allowing me to do so would certainly not be an anti-Jazzhole policy by the government. Likewise, if some racist wants to have a white-only lunch counter, that should be up to him. The government allowing that would not be a racist policy, it would be a laissez-faire policy, a libertarian policy. Certainly a federal law prohibiting minorities from eating at a lunch counter would be racist. Likewise, a federally run institution such as the USPS discriminating against minorities would be racist. A federal policy letting private businesses deal with whom they like is not. One good indicator is the total absence of racial language in the policy.
I simply disagree. I reread what I was responding to, and I understand that you don't view those things as racist in today's world. I also don't think you are racist to believe that. I just think you're wrong. You think high school dropouts in poor neighborhoods won't be intimidated by having to sit down and take a literacy test? Seriously? I know you understand humiliation, well think about the humiliation of being a poor working person, a dropout, who's only semi-literate. Having to take a test isn't going to discourage that person? Are you saying that if such a person fails such a test, that they shouldn't be allowed to vote? I hope not. And the poll tax... I can't understand the reasoning behind this at all. We're actually going to make people pay in order to vote? Pay for the privilege of voting? How can that be? The history of this country is a history of fighting to allow everyone to vote. To encourage everyone to vote. They should be taxed for that privilege? Taxed directly by having to pay a fee? Am I hearing this correctly? Please tell me I'm not.
I don't think the direction of our country should be determined by someone that cannot even read. Of what value is their opinion? Should we elect representatives to Congress who cannot read? What about the President? Even better, I would support a more issues oriented test, so that someone must not only be able to read, but to demonstrate an understanding of what it is they are voting for in order to vote. How many people in this country do you think vote for the person they see on the TV the most? Is that really a better way to decide what direction we should go in. Heck, read your own post. Is a semi-literate high school dropout the person that should decide who the President of the United States is going to be? Everyone who has ever had any sort of Democratic system has warned against the dangers of the mob. The Greeks only let landowners vote, for example. There are a number of reasons a poll tax could be good for this country. It would be another source of revenue in a government that almost universally runs deficits. It would mean that only those who care enough to put their money where their mouth is would vote, which would in turn lead to limiting the pool of voters to those who have at least some idea about what it is they are voting for. Ironically, a poll tax would be one of the most progressive taxes in this country, because wealthy people vote in far greater percentages than poor people. If only those who were able to read and write, could understand on at least a basic level what the candidates stood for, and were willing to shell out a nominal fee for the privilege of voting were allowed to vote, do you honestly think we would wind up with worse representatives in government.
The government's already going to drop a $700 fine on you for simply not buying an insurance policy. What's another $20 going to hurt?
According to the Huffingtonpost article some big government nanny Liberals at HUD were the ones who said that there was no discrimination. [rquoter]"When it comes to a federal law, the individual's constitutional rights trump all," HUD spokeswoman Laura Feldman said. "That's the highest power."[/rquoter]
The problem with what you are saying is that these businesses operate in the public sphere and in that sense even if it is there own decision to discriminate the government still has a responsibility to address that. It is under the same grounds that the government can regulate things like restaurants and bars for a variety of other reasons. As long as the business decides to serve and profit from the public it is then subject to public standards codified in regulations. All that said I am all for a sports bar that discriminates against Jazz fans as I am an unapologetic Rockets Supremacist.
You are a private person, but you drive on public highways. Can the government tell you you can only by a car from GM? Can they tell you that 3 out of every 10 times you buy or lease a car, it must be from a dealership owned by a black person? Shouldn't you be the one to choose? Everything is within the public sphere, by nature of the fact that none of us live in pocket universes. That does not mean that I agree with the notion that the government should be able to regulate every aspect of our lives. In my opinion, a private transaction between two private entities should have no interference from the government. Whether that is a drug deal, a car lease, a same-sex marriage, or a refusal to serve someone at a restaurant. You would have to be a real sicko not to agree with that.
As a private person I am not a business serving the public. Me using the public commons (highways) isn't the same as conducting business on the public highway. Leaving that aside the government actually can and does mandate who I can buy a car from. The government can and does shut down car dealerships for a variety of reasons leaving me only the dealerships that operate legally (or in other words with government sanction) that I can buy from.
Everyone operates in the "public sphere". Bull**** excuse for statism and attack of the freedom of association.
Not everyone seeks to profit in the public sphere. If you have a business that is open to the public you have to abide by public regulations. In fact that is written into the Constitution.
