News Civil rights a low priority

  • Thread starter Tsu
  • Start date

Tsu

Gold Member
353
63
Washington, DC - In an assessment of the civil rights record of the Bush administration, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a draft report that concludes the administration has failed to exhibit leadership or define a clear focus, relegating civil rights to a low priority.


http://www.usccr.gov/
 
464
1
We're fighting a war here, how can you hold a President accountable for SO MANY THINGS all at once. You narrow-minded liberals have such unrealistic goals.

Oh, wait, I see. You're trying to bring down the president with this leftist propaganda, demoralize the troops, have the war fail, make democracy fail in Iraq, let the terrorists win, and have more people die in the middle east, while simeltaneously making Bush's mother sad about this. God, liberals are ruthless and heartless.
 
more sarcasm from w02. pity, since I once enjoyed straigt forward debate with you ,man.
 
464
1
Too much Sean Hannity, I'll try to cut it out, but I need to vent like this and use big capital red letters sometimes so I don't go insane.
 
P

PRBot.Com

Now i know why so many people bash Ayn Rand. Its because people love to be dishonest and subjective about everything. Objectivism does not leave any room for the neurotics to hide behind.
 
732
2
Patriot act.. you'll definitely want to hold him accountable when some FBI agent breaks down your door, hauls you away and handcuffs, and proceeds to lock you up and question you continuously for months on end without legal cousel or recourse? Think it's just fiction? read up and think twice
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,583
4,817
That's fine with me, Tsunami, since I don't consider civil rights to be something that needs to be a priority. This isn't the 1850s or 1920s or 1960s.
 

plover

Homework Helper
187
0
russ_watters said:
That's fine with me, Tsunami, since I don't consider civil rights to be something that needs to be a priority. This isn't the 1850s or 1920s or 1960s.
Leaving aside what the above might mean about the current time, taken as stated, it implies that in the US before the 1850's slavery could be ignored, and in the 20th century before the 60s Jim Crow could be ignored. In other words, civil rights is just a nuisance to be dealt with when enough people are agitated about it. I certainly hope that it was not your intention to make such a truly grotesque point.
 

Tsu

Gold Member
353
63
russ_watters said:
That's fine with me, Tsunami, since I don't consider civil rights to be something that needs to be a priority. This isn't the 1850s or 1920s or 1960s.
Well, that doesn't surprise me at all since you would also like to see grandma and grandpa have their social security and Medicare taken away from them. Careful russ. Your true colors are showing - and they're blending together to form a truly grusome shade of mud. :yuck:
 

Tsu

Gold Member
353
63
Just in case you care, russ, here is a link to one of MANY articles about CURRENT civil rights violations.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5275.shtml [Broken]

The Justice Department is investigating accusations that Florida law enforcement officers intimidated elderly black voters during a probe of voting fraud last spring.
Oh. And here's another one.

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/segprom-2004.html
yet, the 2000 elections proved that much remains to be done so that the rights of every eligible American are protected. For example, the disenfranchisement of Florida’s voters fell most harshly on black voters who, statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, were nearly 10 times more likely than nonblack voters to have their ballots rejected.[22]
Civil rights should not be a priority today, huh? Good one, russ. (Try pulling your head OUT of the sand.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,583
4,817
plover said:
Leaving aside what the above might mean about the current time, taken as stated, it implies that in the US before the 1850's slavery could be ignored, and in the 20th century before the 60s Jim Crow could be ignored. In other words, civil rights is just a nuisance to be dealt with when enough people are agitated about it. I certainly hope that it was not your intention to make such a truly grotesque point.
Not quite. As the debate in the Constitutional convention showed, slavery was always an issue in the early days of the Republic: it ceased to be an issue after emancipation. Women's suffrage ceased to be an issue after it was granted, and though the issue isn't totally dead, civil rights became much less of an issue after the laws of the 1960s.
Tsunami said:
Well, that doesn't surprise me at all since you would also like to see grandma and grandpa have their social security and Medicare taken away from them.
Grandma and grandpa? They already got back more than they paid in! If social security were stopped today, that'd mean taking social security away from myself. So don't give me any crap about my greed. True greed is mortgaging the future of your children so you can get free money (that only appears to be free). Since I am already pessimistic about social security, I would gladly give up what I alread paid in if I could stop paying in (btw, I'm self-employed, so I pay near 16% of my income into SS).
Careful russ. Your true colors are showing - and they're blending together to form a truly grusome shade of mud.
Indeed - freedom is an ugly, ugly (and scary) thing to those who aren't responsible enough to handle it.
Civil rights should not be a priority today, huh? Good one, russ. (Try pulling your head OUT of the sand.)
Precisely how widespread are those specific issues? More widespread than dead Democrats who vote? But hey - I'll start caring about those if you start caring about government mandated racist hiring and contracting practices (affirmative action).
Just in case you care, russ, here is a link to one of MANY articles about CURRENT civil rights violations.
Ironic choice, Tsunami - did you post that without reading it or are you saying that you are against investigating voter fraud? That article is a complaint about the investigation of voter fraud allegedly comitted by a black, Democratic activist. Cute.

This may sound obvious, but things matter to the people they matter to. If ten million people are unemployed, then unemployment matters a lot to ten million people. If a thousand people felt intimidated into changing their votes or not voting (what I think you were trying to say), then civil rights matters a lot to a thousand people. Unemployment matters more to more people than civil rights right now. Being neither unemployed nor feeling like I was discriminated against (some iffy contracts notwithstanding), those issues don't matter much to me.
 
Last edited:

Tsu

Gold Member
353
63
russ_watters said:
Grandma and grandpa? They already got back more than they paid in!
With interest and inflation adjustments?

If social security were stopped today, that'd mean taking social security away from myself. So don't give me any crap about my greed. True greed is mortgaging the future of your children so you can get free money (that only appears to be free).
Sort of like Bush did with our national debt.

Indeed - freedom is an ugly, ugly (and scary) thing to those who aren't responsible enough to handle it.
BINGO!

Precisely how widespread are those specific issues? More widespread than dead Democrats who vote? But hey - I'll start caring about those if you start caring about government mandated racist hiring and contracting practices (affirmative action).
Show me where I've supported affirmative action. I've thought AA has been running amok since the '80's.

Ironic choice, Tsunami - did you post that without reading it or are you saying that you are against investigating voter fraud? That article is a complaint about the investigation of voter fraud allegedly comitted by a black, Democratic activist. Cute.
Cute? Thank you. :biggrin: Actually, I DID post it without reading the whole thing. My bad. I was watching the local news and heard that now OREGON is conducting an investigation into democratic voter registrations being trashed (as well as the Las Vegas investigation that I started a thread about just before the news started) and I was googling as fast as I could! :rolleyes: And, no russ. :rolleyes: I'm not against the investigation into the complaint. In case you haven't figured it out I'M A DEMOCRAT!! Why would I be against such an investigation??? :rolleyes:

This may sound obvious, but things matter to the people they matter to. If ten million people are unemployed, then unemployment matters a lot to ten million people. If a thousand people felt intimidated into changing their votes or not voting (what I think you were trying to say), then civil rights matters a lot to a thousand people. Unemployment matters more to more people than civil rights right now. Being neither unemployed nor feeling like I was discriminated against (some iffy contracts notwithstanding), those issues don't matter much to me.
Ah. The ME Generation. :rolleyes:


Hey! You know what?!?! I'm on vacation now!! See y'all later!!! :wink: :biggrin:
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,583
4,817
Tsunami said:
With interest and inflation adjustments?
Probably not, but why are they entitled to that? In order to get interest, you have to invest (or loan) it. Social security money is spent the instant it hits the government's wallet. But hey - if you want to keep seeing it in those terms, fine: but you also need to acknowledge that that means the real government debt is upwards of $50 trillion and the vast majority of that is caused by democrats (tell Ivan that, too...).
Sort of like Bush did with our national debt.
Tell you what - I'll fix the $10 trillion of Republican-caused debt and you can fix the other $40 trillion of Democrat-caused debt. Fair enough?
YAHTZEE!
Show me where I've supported affirmative action. I've thought AA has been running amok since the '80's.
Fair enough - that was kind-of a side point though. The main point is rare, isolated cases of votor fraud (dead people voting for democrats) happen on both sides. As long as they stay rare and isolated, I'm not too concerned about them.
And, no russ. :rolleyes: I'm not against the investigation into the complaint. In case you haven't figured it out I'M A DEMOCRAT!! Why would I be against such an investigation??? :rolleyes:
Yes, I know - its very important to investigate votor fraud - especially the fraud that hurts Democrats. When the fraud hurts Republicans, its important to investigate the investigation. :tongue2:
Ah. The ME Generation. :rolleyes:
Yep. I'm a "me" person. I'll readily admit it (heck, I'm proud of it!): Me support meself. Me plan for me retirement. Me fix me problems. Me don't want me money taken to fix problems that are not me fault. Me am personally responsible for me success, failure, and future and me expect everyone else to be too.

But you meant problems in general - Yes, I care about my problems more than I care about the problems of others. So what? Anyone who says they care about other people's problems as much as they care about their own is either lying or doesn't have problems worth caring about. That's why people don't vote! You care about civil rights. Fine - I can assure you that if you lived in Nebraska, you'd care more about the plight of farmers.
Hey! You know what?!?! I'm on vacation now!! See y'all later!!! :wink: :biggrin:
Have fun. Tell Ivan I said hi. :wink:
 
Last edited:
1,792
162
russ_watters said:
You sank my battleship :frown:

By the way, to Tsunami, why would you correct for interest and inflation? By suggesting it should be earning interest you are suggesting it is an investment (which it is, in an obtuse way).

Let's say I invest $10,000 in 1975. Today I call my broker and cash in. I'll get the 10k + interest. If I further asked for a correction for inflation I'd get a very polite verbal finger.

To some extent, the inflation rate will be reflected in the interest rate the govt bonds SS is "saved" in bears. There is no reason to correct for inflation beyond that. Either someone is pulling out more money then they would have earned if they had been the ones investing it, or they are not.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,583
4,817
Locrian said:
By the way, to Tsunami, why would you correct for interest and inflation? By suggesting it should be earning interest you are suggesting it is an investment (which it is, in an obtuse way).
Well, that "obtuse way" really is a pyramid scheme. Investments generate their own interest, this generates "interest" simply based on the number of people below you in the pyramid paying into the scheme. If the government weren't doing it, it'd be illegal!
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top