Quote: Justme wrote in post #70

---

The parties fighting over King is like the last steak at a fish fry. Bragging rights over who he might have been are way over played.

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #74

---

The thing that I find perplexing are the instances where King is misquoted.

When Obama had new carpet installed the words woven into the rug and attributed to King were not accurate. The White House said they would fix the error. This carpet was installed in the People's House and the mistake was a reflection on all of us.

Our National Memorial has King's words inscribed into it. It is a disgrace that he was misquoted, there.

People shrug this off and say, "Mistakes happen."

I think it shows how far we have fallen as a people. If we cannot truthfully portray the facts about a man so important in our nation's history, shame on us all.

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #67

---

You want to know why the conservatives are losing big time? The above post is a great example.

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #78

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #67

---

You want to know why the conservatives are losing big time? The above post is a great example.

---

You want to know why this country is as screwed up as it is? Your post is a great example. Both parties ignoring or crapping all over the Constitution for political expediency! Must win an election, must win an election, must pander to this group or that group. The Constitution (and adherence to it) should not be a bargaining chip used to curry favor and "win" an election. Everyone with their new found love for Rand Paul should check out his views about the "civil rights legislation," if you don't like my views on it, you won't like his either.

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #78

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #67

---

You want to know why the conservatives are losing big time? The above post is a great example.

---

You want to know why this country is as screwed up as it is? Your post is a great example. Both parties ignoring or crapping all over the Constitution for political expediency! Must win an election, must win an election, must pander to this group or that group. The Constitution (and adherence to it) should not be a bargaining chip used to curry favor and "win" an election. Everyone with their new found love for Rand Paul should check out his views about the "civil rights legislation," if you don't like my views on it, you won't like his either.

---

Quote: ThirstyMan wrote in post #79

---

On the one hand I spoke of a very just civil right movement. The image of George Wallace standing on the steps of the University of Alabama comes to mind as an example of resistance to the civil rights movement.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...ticle-1.1093344

The treatment of blacks as second class citizens was dispicable and the efforts to change that were the civil rights movement.

And then FP, you respond by referring to "civil rights legislation".

I'm curious, what should we make of this? What is your position regarding the civil rights movement FP ?

It is difficult to imagine you so strongly against the legislation but in favor of the movement toward equality.

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #80

---

I'm sorry but there was a serious problem in the way it was legally okay to treat minorities before the civil rights act. I posted in the thread how I got to experience the practice of a doctor having a whites only waiting room in the late 80's.

You might want to look at who was behind the anti-immigration movement too while your at it. Let's just say a bunch of pro life people will be disgusted and nauseated from being snookered by a bunch of abortion loving, Planned Parenthood supporting, Zero Population Growth eugenists. Oh, they are also hard core environmentalist progressives.

I more than likely will not be a Rand Paul supporter for POTUS. I'm not too concerned with that race until after the 2014 elections.

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #81

---

. . .
The problem with the legislation (Civil Rights Act of 1964) is that is an example of big government overstepping its Constitutional bounds. (And this is why we have been plagued with this type of government overreach, before then, and since then. It is because the underlying "cause" was a good one. It was good to end racial discrimination and segregation. Therefore, most people are less concerned with the details of implementation, than they are of the desired outcome.) It was just and proper for the Congress to pass laws that eliminated racial segregation and discrimination from entities of the government (and one could argue entities funded (at least in part) by government). That was the rightful Constitutional limit of such legislation. However, Congress over-stepped it bounds by legislating the behavior of individuals and privately owned entities. (It was actually another egregious example of abuse of the "interstate commerce clause" that Congress used to justify its overstep (in terms of "public accommodation) -- and we've been bitten in the backside by that same overreach time and time again, haven't we.) By unconstitutionally regulating private behavior, government assaults our natural rights to private property, freedom of speech, and freedom of association, in this case.
. . .
For a constitutional conservative, some of these issues are not so easy. Collectively, our morality and inherent sense of right and wrong tell us that we should "do all we can" to eliminate a societal scourge like racism. Where we often make the mistake is that in our genuine desire to "right a wrong," we fail to see that giving government carte blanche to solve a problem, leads to more problems. Either we believe that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land, or we don't. We can't in good conscience make exceptions or look the other way when government overreach tramples on the Constitution, even if the stated end result is something that we want or admire. We either believe in our natural rights (that include free speech, freedom of association, and private property ownership) that are granted to us by our Creator (or stated differently for a non-believer, by virtue of our humanity), or we don't. We don't ever want to wander down the slippery slope of voluntarily giving up some of rights for our "protection and safety" or to force society into a mold that we find "more desirable."

---

By whom?

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #82

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #80

---

I'm sorry but there was a serious problem in the way it was legally okay to treat minorities before the civil rights act. I posted in the thread how I got to experience the practice of a doctor having a whites only waiting room in the late 80's.

You might want to look at who was behind the anti-immigration movement too while your at it. Let's just say a bunch of pro life people will be disgusted and nauseated from being snookered by a bunch of abortion loving, Planned Parenthood supporting, Zero Population Growth eugenists. Oh, they are also hard core environmentalist progressives.

I more than likely will not be a Rand Paul supporter for POTUS. I'm not too concerned with that race until after the 2014 elections.

---

My post above to TM better explains my point of view. In the case of the doctor's waiting room, the free market (along with societal enlightenment) will always ultimately force that change better than government. After all, you had to experience that horror well after 1964 when it became "illegal!" As time marches on and more patients discovered the racist behavior of this doctor, they would vote with their feet and find another doctor. Soon he would close his doors, or just service the needs of fellow racists (which, as nasty as it may be, is his (and the patients) right to do), as much as you and I may find it to be abhorrent.

(I'm well aware of the eugenicists and their evil, have been for quite some time.)

I also only mentioned Rand Paul in my prior post because he experienced a few "gotcha" moments with the media in his 2010 race on the very issue with the 1964 CRA that I am discussing here. They tried to paint him as a "racist" because he attempted to call attention to the very same problems with the legislation.

---

Quote: Ford289HiPo wrote in post #85

---

By whom?

---

Quote: steph wrote in post #86

---

If it was a fair playing field prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act where the free market was allowed to function then there wouldn't have been a need to change the law allowing for equal access to such things as school, medical care and other things.

Besides, don't you think the segregationist laws would not have been in place if the Constitution was actually being adhered to? If you think it was just fine for the way things were then we are not anywhere on the same page politically.

---

I hate the echo chamber in this place! It's terrible!

:P