Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Our New President
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3217 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/27/2010 11:55:28 AM

I don't need to throw low punches or gouge anyone in the eye to make my points. But if they start doing it to me--standard practice for chickenshit, America-hating leftist weasels


Did you noticed your unprovoked cheap shot or low punch?

Ethical standards are principles, which when followed, promote values such as trust, good behavior, fairness, and/or kindness. There is not one consistent set of standards that all companies follow, but each company has the right to develop the standards that are meaningful for their organization. I find it interesting for an attorney to have no ethical standards at all. Ethical standards are not always easily enforceable, as they are frequently vaguely defined and somewhat open to interpretation.

When a person refuses to cite their sources and simply claim their seniority on a forum should be suffice, shouldn't that raise concern? Mr. Light is an excellent writer and does a great job blending his personal views with some facts which come off as propaganda. Challenging a person's claim is enough reason to start insulting people? Should readers believe everything posted as 100% fact?

I enjoy these forums, because I am able to exchange ideas with individuals from different backgrounds, experiences, and social circles. Most views expressed belong to demo graph of our population. These exchanges are part of the process required to correct an individual's perspective.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3204 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/26/2010 10:45:03 PM

That's a little late coming from you, isn't it? After you called everyone else on here a racist, bigot, Nazi, and everything else? I've see this chicken ---- from leftists for a long, long time now. They slander anyone they don't happen to agree with by calling them all sorts of insulting things, as if they had an exclusive license, and no one could do anything back to them. Right. I have another side that's no gentleman at all. I only let it out in certain situations, like someone on the street putting his hands on my girlfriend--or someone insulting me personally in the way I've been seeing on here


Mr. Light,

It's never too late to make necessary changes. I consider myself fairly new around here, but I do not recall using those terms against any individual on these forums. However, I have seen you on multiple occasions project direct and indirect insults at participants who do not agree with you. Whenever I suggest that an individual's view and behavior are in line with racism and bigotry is an effort to help the individual correct their thinking. I see no harm in having a civil discussion about racism or other sensitive topics.

I would suggest directing your posts to the readers instead of the individual poster if you feel you need to get personal and nasty. Just an advice.



*starts U.S.A chant
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3200 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/26/2010 8:45:47 PM

But nobody owes you any coddling if you lapse into racist, sexist, or homophobic styles of discourse, and if someone does call you out for doing it, they are DOING YOU A FAVOR.


Mr. Light,

Most of us understand how frustrating it can be discussing politics on the Internet. Indicators such as tone and facial expressions are invincible, the result are different interpretations of a quote.

I agree with Mr. Ace's quote. Human interaction is required for personal development. If you had a friend acting like a fool, wouldn't you want to correct his behavior? When I tell my friend he has horrible breath, I am doing him a favor.

Can we please turn down all this Internet tough guy business. Perhaps we should direct our energy at constructing an informative thread on "How to debate on the Internet."

I enjoy reading everyone's perspective and would hate to see two forum contributors suddenly stop posting :crying:
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Plug that damn hole!
Posted: 5/26/2010 3:07:10 AM

However it is the job of the govt to protect the people from disasters.


We can only hope our government make the necessary changes to prevent future disasters.

I was shocked to hear our government does not have the knowledge or equipment in order to push BP out. Once this well is capped. Would it make sense to have our government either take over the industry, thus giving our government the knowledge and equipment. The other option would not allow any off-shore drilling until our government completes it own research and analysis of an operation. Oil companies are submitting bullshit environmental reports and worst case scenario plans because the fools approving them "lack the know how" to see through the bullshit.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3159 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/24/2010 11:28:16 PM

Apparently the only thing that pleases you is to have everyone else acknowledge that you're right.


Mr. Space's comments matches my opinion on certain forum participants. I appreciate his courage to post what most of us were already thinking. Coming from Ace, who I am assuming close in age and experience, eliminates the usual response of racism and being "uneducated".


If you think I'm going to spend time trying to make reasoned arguments to someone who calls me an idiot, a denier of the truth, and so on, you're wrong.


The most dangerous aspect of the Internet is the ability to communicate while maintaining anonymity. This emerging technology provides another forum where aggression against one another is possible.

These forums are part of a Dating website. In my opinion, these forums should be more inviting. Aren't we here to meet people? Maybe we should discuss lighter topics in an effort to not scare the "fish" with all the noise?

Like most of us, you do not being called names but yet you regularly take indirect shots at forum participants. I am not sure if you are reflecting an attitude of superiority or showing off your vocabulary skills. Either way, I am willing to wager that the aggression shown on these forums is the reason only a handful of folks bother participating.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Plug that damn hole!
Posted: 5/24/2010 8:52:13 PM
Everyone should be aware about the disaster occurring in the Gulf by now.

Anyone have any thoughts on the situation?

15k-20k barrels per day dumped into the ocean and if efforts fail it could be August till we see the leak fixed
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 68 (view)
 
Should we stop people from doing drugs?
Posted: 5/24/2010 6:46:53 PM

well..........Roe v. Wade
live with it and get over it.




Thanks for that citation Mz Taken.

Incoming dissertation post from _______ sprinkled with insults and big words.

 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3150 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/24/2010 6:16:52 PM

No, I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that way back in the far reaches of your mind, you come from a generation where racism was the norm. If you haven't taken the time or trouble to deprogram yourself, then neither you, nor anyone else, can know whether your venom comes from a genuine concern or if you're just being reactionary, now can you?

You make a lot of good points, but there's so much confirmation bias in your narrative that it's actually quite pathetic and hard to listen to. You try to be clever and ever so superior, but it comes off as ... bloviating.


 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3139 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/23/2010 6:59:51 PM

LOL can you say "low impulse control?"


LOL

I just noticed most of you guys have the same style of writing/posting. Whenever confronted with logic and history its customary to see a response ..


throwing around pop terms is just an indirect way of insulting someone.


These forums were entertaining until I realized I was debating with people who want to see this country regress.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3136 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/23/2010 6:29:45 PM
---comment removed--
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 200 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/23/2010 10:54:26 AM

throwing around pop terms is just an indirect way of insulting someone.



That's pretty much what the German Marxists who first cooked up the notion of political correctness hoped it would do. The same is true of the racist notions of "diversity" and "multiculturalism." The people who pushed for these notions are intolerant brownshirts who bitterly hate America, and they hope to bring it down by indoctrinating its people in them. You can see hordes of their minions regurgitating this anti-American garbage just about anyplace these days. Fitting that they elected a President whose contempt for America and its Constitution, and whose sympathy for its enemies, are as deep as their own. He's just slick enough to know how to hide it.


Now that I am aware of your writing style I have reached the conclusion you simply enjoy shit-talking behind the safety of your monitor. Instead of providing an informative rebuttal to the topic you write these long winded essays filled with anger and bitterness usually attacking others. The fact you enjoy indirectly insulting others simply shows how spineless you are.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3130 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/23/2010 10:37:45 AM
That was a great video explaining how businesses are the villians preying on undocumented citizens.

Our vision of reform includes immigrants and native-born U.S. citizens working shoulder to shoulder to achieve better wages, working conditions, and labor protections. That’s our vision for a stronger America – for families, for workers, for businesses, and for security.

For America’s Families:

The family is the basic unit of our society, and immigrants who have the support of strong families are more likely to contribute to society, pay taxes, and start businesses that create jobs. But our broken immigration system divides families and keeps loved ones apart for years and even decades, which discourages them from following the rules and working within the system.

It doesn’t make sense to spend billions of dollars rounding people up, breaking up families, shutting down businesses, and deporting people who are working, learning English, and putting down roots here. For immigrants who don’t have legal status, we should require them to come out of the shadows and register, pay taxes, and start working toward becoming Americans, while keeping their families together.

For America’s Workers:

Reforming immigration will help protect all workers from exploitation and unfair competition. Currently, millions of workers — one in twenty in the U.S. workforce — are vulnerable to employers who seek unfair advantage over their competitors by not paying workers minimum wage or by ignoring labor rights protected by law. Bringing undocumented workers into the system will allow them to stand up for their rights and to unionize. When they are on equal footing with other workers, unscrupulous employers will not easily be able to pit one group of workers against another, driving down wages for all Americans.

America should not settle for a downwardly spiraling competition for lower wage jobs. America needs more jobs, more rights for workers, and better wages, not more laws to keep workers out or keep workers down.
Reforming immigration is an important part of fixing the ailing economy. The federal government has an obligation to reform immigration for all American workers.
For America’s Economy:

Today, almost every American company needs smart planning, to navigate through hard times and be ready for growth when the economy recovers. Unfortunately, for too many American businesses, the unreliable and obsolete immigration system makes planning for the future more difficult.

Industries like agriculture that require a large workforce ready, willing, and able to work long and physically demanding days have been unable to plan their business strategies around a stable workforce. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, such sectors have relied on immigrant workers to do those jobs. The hospitality, restaurant, business services, and manufacturing sectors face similar problems.

One of the challenges American businesses face today is the aging American workforce, the rapid retirement of the large Baby Boomer generation. To maintain a balanced and a stable workforce, American businesses must find younger workers, especially in manual labor jobs. With more and more US citizen youth earning high school and college degrees, the trend is making the prospects of adequately filling jobs in certain sectors extremely difficult, even in this tough economy.
For America’s Security:

The immigration system we have today makes little sense in terms of America’s security. With few legal options to come in through the system, many seek ways to go around it. The broken system has spawned a thriving market for smugglers and has generated chaos on the border. A seemingly random enforcement regime targets ordinary immigrant workers and families, diverting resources away from protecting against genuine threats. Millions of immigrants are unknown to the government. Unscrupulous employers have little fear of punishment for recruiting and exploiting undocumented workers and undermining their honest competitors.

Immigration reform will allow more immigrants to come with a visa, not with a smuggler. It will require undocumented immigrants to get right with the law, register with the government, and go through government background security checks. This screening process will separate ordinary immigrants who have come seeking opportunities to better their lives from those who may be exploiting opportunities a broken system provides to those who may be coming to do us harm.

 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 40 (view)
 
MAN with no sex at all?
Posted: 5/23/2010 9:02:55 AM
Kinda sucks that I'm the first person to pop up on that link
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3126 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/23/2010 2:15:54 AM

You want them here to work cheap, but they also serve as a boogeyman for your fearmongering, a convenient ruse.


This is historically accurate. Guest worker Program, farm workers, and the Bracero program reflect our country's need for cheap labor. Prop 187 and the ridiculous claims fabricated on this thread are examples of fearmongering.


Every American should consider aliens illegally present in the U.S. hostile to our laws.


Are you suggesting Hispanic- American citizens turn their back on family? Are you including ‘hyphenators’ in your definition for “Every American?” If not please see the definition for nativism.

I've noticed your posts are long winded nonsense filled with pop terms.



You're not concerned with what's best for America, but you try to hide that plain fact by impugning everyone else's motives as a lust for racial scapegoating. As if you, and leftists like you, with the view that sitting on your high horses gives you, could tell that the rest of us slack-jawed primitives were just itching for a modern-day Kristallnacht, only substituting Mexicans for Jews. If we could all only be half as morally virtuous and high-minded as you so obviously fancy yourself.




throwing around pop terms is just an indirect way of insulting someone.


:down:
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3121 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/22/2010 9:17:13 PM

I think I'm gonna have to go to Arizona and teach these folks a lil political strategery. Spin the illegal crossing of the border into "breaking and entering" and watch America then put this into perspective as a crime. It's not that hard Arizona!!!!!!!!!


Thank you for making the point how easy it is for the government in power to construct 'spin' laws and obstacles to make an individual’s pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness viewed as illegal and sinister. WTF happened to "guest worker?" I would argue, most undocumented citizens were lured to this country. This country loves cheap labor. Dividing undocumented citizens from their families is cruel and inhumane. Citizens who believe such treatment is justified are racist in my opinion.

This topic is fueled by both racism and nativism. Nativism typically means opposition to immigration or efforts to lower the political or legal status of specific ethnic or cultural groups because the groups are considered hostile or alien to the natural culture, and it is assumed that they cannot be assimilated.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3110 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/21/2010 8:53:33 PM

I never said that so re-read what I did say and I'll expect an apology from you too.


I will provide a definition for racism and some quotes. Your comments reflect a racist attitude by definition. In my opinion, you owe our Hispanic-American forum readers an apology.

rac·ism- Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.


These La Raza types who are illegal aliens need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.



They want to come to the U.S. illegally and change it into a socialist country so they can receive MORE HANDOUTS.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 3107 (view)
 
Our New President
Posted: 5/21/2010 7:03:45 PM

CA forum I have been called a RACIST dozens of times because I am against ILLEGAL Immigration. Does anyone care to apologize to me? Just asking.....


It's not your opinion on Illegal Immigration. In my opinion your unintelligent, hurtful, and ignorant comments towards the demo graph that makes you racist. A perfect example would be your accusation of National La Raza members as a band of "illegals."
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 38 (view)
 
Should we stop people from doing drugs?
Posted: 5/21/2010 12:00:44 PM

Here's a little physiology for you....... Approximately once a month a woman DESTROYS an egg............ AND, if men don't have sex, the human body does it form them in the form of something called "nocturnal emission".........................


Women need to stop Destroying an egg every month!
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 169 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 7:39:49 PM

They want to come to the U.S. illegally and change it into a socialist country so they can receive MORE HANDOUTS.

Then they want the SAME people whom they lovingly refer to as "racists" to give them yet more handouts.

Is there any limit to this hypocrisy?


I would argue that the "handouts" are also part of the plan to oppress and marginalize minorities. Notice how these clowns associate public safety nets with "illegals." Most federal "handout" programs are taken advantage by Caucasian Americans. There are complete towns along the Appalachian dependent on these handouts.

"Handouts" cripple and coddle the population. It robs individuals of their drive and purpose.

 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 133 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/17/2010 12:02:58 AM
" 213... even the union issue is a racist thing with you? Why can't people think different, without being racist? Your credibility is lacking when everything that is a different opinion of yours has to do with racism. "

Mr. Diamond,

Having the courage to honestly discuss race relations does not make the person a racist. I wish people would stop making this assumption. That kind of thinking discourages people from sharing their perspective and experiences thus preventing a solution to social problems.

My opinion on the elimination of Unions would oppress anyone part of the middle-class or lower. This is only a racial issue, because most minorities belong to this economic group. The hypenators are increasingly filling jobs which are/were Unionized and the fact they are disappearing is an interesting coincidence worth researching. Whether or not its racially motivated requires further study.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 129 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/16/2010 9:44:50 PM

Don't know what a Union has ever done to you, but you're basically saying our infrastructure should be built by cheap ignorant labor when you attack them.


Very interesting comment Skooch,

In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head when describing Union-haters. Your thought correlates with my idea why it is in their interest to keep minorities in place. An uneducated population with no self-esteem have no way of ensuring fair and just wages. An example would be the operation of non-union supermarkets in California. Elimination of labor unions guarantees further oppression of citizens.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Should we stop people from doing drugs?
Posted: 5/16/2010 11:49:09 AM
According to he Office of National Drug Control policy, the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that the highest rate of current (past month) illicit drug use was among American Indian/Alaska Natives (13.7%), followed by blacks/African Americans (9.8%), persons reporting two or more races (8.9%), whites (8.5%), Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islanders (7.5%), and Hispanics (6.9%). The lowest rate of current illicit drug use was among Asians (3.6%).

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, there were a total of 1,382,783 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States during 2007 where the race of the offender was reported. Of these drug abuse violation arrests, 63.7% of those arrested were white, 35.1% were black, 0.6% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.6% were American Indian or Alaskan Native.

In 2004, the U.S. Marshals Service arrested and booked 140,755 total suspects for Federal offenses, 23.6% of which were for drug offenses.

The majority of drug offenders held in State prisons were black (112,500), followed by whites (65,900), and Hispanics (51,800).

In my opinion, too much money is invested in rehabilitation and not enough is being spent to educate and prevent future users. Education is imperative to stop the cycle of drug use in families and neighborhoods.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 121 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/16/2010 11:36:47 AM

By claiming what you did about my credibility, you told them a lot about your own.


I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 117 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/16/2010 1:45:24 AM
" You won't actually say you don't like white people, and only you know that. But I've learned that's often the case with people who are as obsessed with racial identity as you seem to be. "

I guess this is a good time to use my Caucasian response when accused of racism:

"But my best friends happen to be white!"

Does accusing me of being a racist dismiss the facts I presented?

I would argue that I am more knowledgeable than most on racial issues. Obsess would not be an accurate description. Unlike most of you, I at least take the time to to familiarize myself with the topic and terminology before spouting off nonsense and unprovoked racist comments such as "These La Raza types who are illegal aliens."

In my opinion the example comment is an effort to dismiss the organization's mission as "illegal." People who work for National Council of La Raza are citizens and part of this country. How is a group of illegal aliens able to do the following?


The Council of La Raza succeeded in having itself added to congressional hearings by Republican House and Senate leaders.


" I don't need to get into documenting all the statements and writings from those people that document their bigotry. "

I find it interesting that you are able to fabricate your own references on several issues, but decide to accuse an organization as being racist without even producing one slice of evidence.

Anyone who believes every word in the article posted by Mr. Husker needs to reread the article and do some fact checking.

It is my hope readers are able to recognize the ridiculous and exaggerated claims. For example

"... the National Council of La Raza is no more than a Hispanic Rotary Club."

and supposedly this Rotary Club will eventually...

"The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of "Aztlan."

I had no idea Rotary Clubs were that powerful.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 109 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/15/2010 12:33:08 PM
Total garbage reporting. I am sure there was no bias.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 107 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/15/2010 12:03:38 PM
"Or is Laraza-illegal-Mexican- American would that be OK with you? "


" By the way, the ONLY ones who seek to divide according to race are the very ones that you so try to defend....... Examples? How about just one........ La Raza........ More than that need not be said. "

It is a shame that the term “La Raza” conjures feelings of racism and bigotry.

The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people.” Most people misinterpret “La Raza” to mean “the Race,” implying the term meant to exclude others. The term was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.

The phrase is commonly used today to uplift people and promote community. The term does not suggest superiority. When "La Raza" is mentioned, it speaks of the fact that my children can have blue or brown eyes, thin or wide eyes, pale skin or the darkest skin. The hair may vary from kinky to straight. We dance to the rhythms of many nations. La Raza is the result colonialism . "La Raza" is about inclusion, not exclusion. Viva La Raza!
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 102 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/15/2010 12:35:36 AM

Let's apply a little logic here. If being in America is bad for you, why wouldn't you move to say Canada?


So you're suggesting that hyphenators find a new homes instead of excersizing their right to shape this country?

I fail to understand your logic other than divide our population and suggesting minorities "take it or leave it" reflects a defensive mentality and a counterproductive attitude.


A family of four at the poverty level of $19,350 per year must spend 15.7 percent of its household income to pay for a year's tuition at CSU.


15.7% of a family's income to send one child to school is a bargain? You sir are out of touch.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 99 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/14/2010 6:04:51 PM
"Discounting people's sincere charitable intentions as white guilt is another form of racism. I don't feel guilty in the least. I worked full time and went to college full time so I could pay the tution. I didn't even apply for any grant money, I wanted to make it on my own."

Haiti was the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere long before its disaster. Where were these charitable donations then? In my opinion, the funds raised represent an indirect sense of guilt.

Your college experience simply shows superiority ( similiar to the "Queen Bee" syndrome) and lack of consideration towards changing times. Do you think a high school graduate can easily find and earn enough to pay today’s tuition?

Here is an article regarding CSU tuitions:

Today, the odds are stacked against a widowed waitress buying a home, much less sending three kids to college. Do the math:

In 1964, my tuition at CSU was $50 per semester, which took my mother less than a week - 38 hours - to make at $1.30 an hour (about $2,600 per year). In 1965, a family of four living at the poverty level of $3,130 spent 3.2 percent of its household income for a son or daughter to attend CSU for a year.

Today, a minimum-wage earner making $6.75 an hour ($13,500 a year) must work 5.6 weeks - 225 hours - to write a $1,516 check for one semester of tuition. A family of four at the poverty level of $19,350 per year must spend 15.7 percent of its household income to pay for a year's tuition at CSU. Even community college now costs 2.7 percent of a poor family's yearly income.

California's minimum wage may have increased fivefold over the past 40 years, but CSU tuition mushroomed by a factor of 30 during the same period.

Even worse, our state and national political leaders seem intent on slamming the doors to higher education

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to forgo tuition increases for a year will not undo the compact he forced on the CSU and University of California The University of California has a combined student body of more than 191,000 students, over 1,340,000 living alumni, and a combined systemwide and campus endowment of just over $7.3 billion (8th largest in the United States). that allows tuition increases of up to 10 percent per year until 2011.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 98 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/14/2010 5:36:20 PM
"Frankly I think the victim mentality holds people back from reaching their potential. Instead of complaining, they need to take responsibility for their own lives.

Reverse racism is STILL racism. Frankly blaming white people is a sign of a weak character. "

Perhaps there is a victim mentality because proof of victimization exists? The few examples listed clearly show groups of people held from reaching their potential.

In order to solve any problem requires evaluation and analyzing the data. Dismissing a group of their grievances without considering the data is a sign of weak character and hints towards superiority.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 89 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/14/2010 11:05:26 AM
My comment was meant to reinforce the importance of minority participation in politics. The actions taken in 1932 against African- Americans was not caused and accepted by a 'few' people. In 1932 Caucasian- American wield the political power in country. This power was used to justify experimentation and discrimination.


"Consider this, when the Haiti disaster ocurred, my largely Caucasian church sent over $100,000 to aid people of color who we do not even know because it was the right thing to do. We also arranged for a new school to open to replace one destroyed by the disaster."

I wonder how many Asian countries sent relief funds to Tennessee. "

Seriously, would you want our President soliciting other nations for help? Didn't we have clowns accusing our President showing weakness when he bowed to Japan's royalty?

Haiti and white guilt is an entirely different subject so I'll avoid it for now.

Husker, please read my posts in page 2 of this thread. I provide examples of a curriculum that place minorities in a negative light, this same curriculum has a recurring theme suggesting racial superiority. Thus providing Caucasian students positive therapy.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 84 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/14/2010 10:37:01 AM
"After placing the children in control and experimental groups, Tudor gave positive speech therapy to half of the children, praising the fluency of their speech, and negative speech therapy to the other half, belittling the children for every speech imperfection and telling them they were stutterers. Many of the normal speaking orphan children who received negative therapy in the experiment suffered negative psychological effects and some retained speech problems during the course of their life. "

http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/

Thanks for the post.

The monster study correlates with my ideas about primary and secondary education belittling children from minority backgrounds. If a normal child is receiving negative therapy about their race and culture, is it reasonable to conclude the child will suffer negative psychological effects and possibly retain identification issues during the course of their life?
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 80 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/14/2010 9:49:54 AM
Your comment is an interesting perspective on Healthcare. Are you accepting/recognizing the experiment was oppressive and discriminatory? I would argue that the unethical results and conclusions from the Tuskegee experiment did advance healthcare. Unfortunately, the Caucasian-American government at the time (1932) felt it was justified to use African- Americans. This article is an example how a Caucasian government flexes its superiority and oppress a minority race.

 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 77 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/14/2010 9:31:40 AM
I would argue that experimentation on minority races also give Caucasians a leg up.

Who do these victims blame? Were victims weak and adequate for believing our government?

July 25, 2002 --Thirty years ago today, the Washington Evening Star newspaper ran this headline on its front page: "Syphilis Patients Died Untreated." With those words, one of America's most notorious medical studies, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, became public.

"For 40 years, the U.S. Public Health Service has conducted a study in which human guinea pigs, not given proper treatment, have died of syphilis and its side effects," Associated Press reporter Jean Heller wrote on July 25, 1972. "The study was conducted to determine from autopsies what the disease does to the human body."

The next morning, every major U.S. newspaper was running Heller's story. For Morning Edition, NPR's Alex Chadwick reports on how the Tuskegee experiment was discovered after 40 years of silence.

The Public Health Service, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began the study in 1932. Nearly 400 poor black men with syphilis from Macon County, Ala., were enrolled in the study. They were never told they had syphilis, nor were they ever treated for it. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for "bad blood," a local term used to describe several illnesses, including syphilis, anemia and fatigue.

For participating in the study, the men were given free medical exams, free meals and free burial insurance.

At the start of the study, there was no proven treatment for syphilis. But even after penicillin became a standard cure for the disease in 1947, the medicine was withheld from the men. The Tuskegee scientists wanted to continue to study how the disease spreads and kills. The experiment lasted four decades, until public health workers leaked the story to the media.

By then, dozens of the men had died, and many wives and children had been infected. In 1973, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a class-action lawsuit. A $9 million settlement was divided among the study's participants. Free health care was given to the men who were still living, and to infected wives, widows and children.

But it wasn't until 1997 that the government formally apologized for the unethical study. President Clinton delivered the apology, saying what the government had done was deeply, profoundly and morally wrong:

"To the survivors, to the wives and family members, the children and the grandchildren, I say what you know: No power on Earth can give you back the lives lost, the pain suffered, the years of internal torment and anguish.

"What was done cannot be undone. But we can end the silence. We can stop turning our heads away. We can look at you in the eye and finally say, on behalf of the American people: what the United States government did was shameful.

"And I am sorry."
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 75 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/14/2010 9:12:51 AM
" It isn't a given, it takes a lot of hard work, skill, and even some luck. But the only way you are guaranteed not to succeed and be happy, is if you allow yourself not to. I'm sorry, but again, this old fart believes that if individuals can not stand on their own two feet, realize the gifts that you have, and not allow those who want to keep you where they are, because sorry loves company, You only have yourselves to blame. Not someone else who you feel has a leg up, because their skin is lighter than yours. "


Here is an article about a group of minorities who had their feet swept under them. Do you think they have an excuse to be mad? Who is to blame for denying them the opportunity to have a college education? Was this action (Japanese internment) successful oppressing minority advancement?

Actions taken against minority groups such as the article posted give Caucasian- Americans a "leg up." The following article is just one example.

LONG BEACH, Calif. -- More than 70 Japanese-Americans whose college careers at California State University campuses were derailed when they were sent to World War II internment camps are getting their diplomas.

Six CSU campuses are awarding honorary degrees over the next three weeks to former students who were unable to complete their studies.

Some of the aging alumni plan to attend the special commencement ceremonies. Those who are deceased or unable to travel will be represented by their families.

Both the Cal State system and the University of California last year decided to belatedly honor the estimated 950 students who were forced to leave college in 1942 for internment camps throughout the West.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 64 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/12/2010 11:17:16 PM
Great example at how easy it is to spout nonsense and a perfect definition of an internet tough guy. *bravo Golf

Your response and assumptions about me clearly shows your level of retardation, unwillingness to respect other point of views, and inability to communicate.

I was not aware these forums were for Krusty Kracker Klub members only. I make no apologies for bringing a different perspective to the table.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 60 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/12/2010 9:23:01 PM
" If you're going to insult the people who founded and built this country by claiming they discriminated and oppressed, back that up with specific facts. Otherwise, someone might consider it an ethnic or racial insult. "

American slavery, Chinese exclusion Act, Bracero Program, Japanese internment, the Tuskegee experiment, Jim Crowe.....

The people who founded this country did discriminate. This evident by voting requirement of the era. Only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. There was also a time when African- American votes were not equal to Caucasians. Feel free to correct me.

" any time you want to hear what I think about your politically correct, multicultural, revisionist history and what its purposes are, you just let me know. "

By posting I was already letting you know. It is refreshing to see you did not find a way to pull the Constitution into this conversation. *bravo
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 58 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/12/2010 8:23:16 PM
Mr. K,


" ...weak people trying to find a reason and excuse for their inadequacy."

Since the largest group, European Americans have the lowest poverty rate and the highest educational attainment levels, median household income, and median personal income of any racial demographic in the nation. I am going to assume Mr. Coast is asserting minorities as the "weak" and "inadequate."

Applying history and common sense, most of us would agree European- American success is the result of generations of discrimination and oppression. European- American success does not reflect superiority.

Paul your responses about our African- American president reflect feelings of being threatened.

Why does my preference of being referred as an Asian- American bother you?
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 56 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/12/2010 7:48:46 PM
Mr. Coast,

Naturally, most Caucasian- Americans (or European- American) would feel threatened by the emergence and recognization of the hyphenators. This fear is reflected in your word use of ‘overthrow’ instead of ‘change’ or ‘modify’. Changing the status quo begins with recognizing the hyphenators and social barriers. I’m sure it’s a lot easier to accuse minorities as inadequate.

Emergence of citizens who identify themselves with a hyphenation help expose the discrimination and barriers that continue exist today through quantitative research. For example, Racial discrimination in advertising is 38% worse than in the country's overall labor market and the divergence between racial equality in this industry and the rest of the labor market is more than twice as large today as 30 years ago, according to the Research Perspective on Race and Employment in the Advertising Industry.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 52 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/12/2010 7:03:25 PM
Hey Mr. K,

Thank you for sharing your honest perspective. Providing a rebuttal would be redundant responses I have already posted on this subject.

A common attack on the hyphenators is to question their loyalties. Personally, I feel it’s an attempt to keep minorities invincible and insignificant. In my opinion the effort not to recognize hyphenators is an attempt to deflect white guilt onto the rest of citizens.

It also seems like Mr. K and Golf Dude are suggesting that minorities accept the status quo.

" Chale Homes"
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 49 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/12/2010 6:11:46 PM
I just had a brilliant idea!! We could give little recognition pins to all the minorities, females, people from deprived backgrounds, people who are gay, people who may be gay...


edit: (comment removed)
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/12/2010 10:22:53 AM
It is unfortunate you feel that hyphenated- Americans is destroying this country.

The hyphenated phenomenon is an effort to recognize the contributions of minorities. By doing so allows minority to feel "American." Without recognizing minority contributions it makes it far too easy for those who call themselves real “Americans” to accuse minorities of not having a hand in building this nation.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 40 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/11/2010 12:27:24 PM
Golf dude,

The source for self-esteem is complex. Self-esteem is taught and emulated by observing and accepting how the world works. People process and internalize conclusions and accept presented evidence. This is especially true when speaking about primary and secondary education. Most students are continually processing a history which cast minorities as inferior or insignificant. This is not mentioning the added influence of media. Most of us would agree the brainwashing is effective in chipping away at the self-esteem of minorities. In my opinion, this is why most minorities choose not to participate in discussions about politics.

Your Columbus example proves this. How does one ‘discover’ new land that was already populated?

It is very difficult for a child to have a higher level of self-esteem than the person who raised them. This means that it is imperative that minorities need to step it up.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 38 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/11/2010 8:56:36 AM
Can you provide some examples of minorities or women who have contributed and not received credit?


Any person who has studied or paid attention during American history courses would admit there is a recurring theme of superiority by one group. In my opinion, this brainwashes minority students into feeling ashamed and distancing themselves from their culture.

There are many examples of minority exclusion in our history books. By not being included it is like a tree without its roots. For example, students in Texas are taught Jane Long is the "Mother of Texas" because it is claimed that she was the first woman to have a child in the state.

This short lesson simply excluded all Latinos, Mexicans and native Americans that had babies. By giving Jane Long the title as the "Mother of Texas" proves my point about writing and teaching a history that makes minorities non-existent or invincible.

Another example would be the exclusion of Chinese from newspapers photographs after completing national railroads.

Finally, Lena Horn's early roles were short because studios would edit her out for movies distributed to the south.

It is important to have Latino and minority children be proud of their history and culture, but they will not even know it unless it is taught.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 35 (view)
 
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/11/2010 3:45:30 AM
This country’s rich history has excluded the contributions of women and minorities. As an Asian-American, I feel it is important that we express ourselves and make our presence and perspectives known.

In my opinion, most people who regularly discuss politics simply enjoy complaining, educating and influencing citizens who are too busy to be fully informed. Honest discussion is a good thing.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 937 (view)
 
Shortages predicted
Posted: 5/2/2010 11:21:42 PM
The whole annual budget for the Defense Department is usually between 5 and 7 % of GDP--only a fraction of what the U.S. now spends on social welfare programs


Hey everyone!

Interesting comment. I find your quote difficult to believe. Mind helping me out with some kind of reference?

Great to see this thread is still going..
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 134 (view)
 
UN EFFING BELIEVABLE, now you can't even state if you prefer a certain religion.............
Posted: 3/29/2010 8:55:09 PM

The ACLU released the video I mentioned, titled "Justice Denied: Voices from Guantanamo," last November. It is a pack of anti-American lies, and I would be glad to prove that in detail on another thread.


No need for another thread...

Thanks for the video title: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm-tFt3Itoc

John
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 130 (view)
 
UN EFFING BELIEVABLE, now you can't even state if you prefer a certain religion.............
Posted: 3/29/2010 6:05:21 PM
Mr. Light,

My problem is your opinions are rarely supported by facts. For example:


I'm sure, as someone who's made clear he loathes this country


Is this fact because my views do not align with yours or Mr. K’s?

When I read people claiming the ACLU are more concerned about defending our enemies it makes me think wonder if these same people consider black and minorities as the “enemy.” Which is why I decided to copy/paste their key moments. I’m sure you’re not going to openly admit to this and continue to cite specific or fragmented information.

As stated, I do not have enough information or interest to address the points you’ve raised earlier.


But anyone who thinks the ACLU is committed to helping this country should ask why, then, it has been spreading propaganda for the Muslim jihadists who are at war with us.


Would it be too much to provide a source or at least the name of this movie?

There were several reasons why I decided to list the ACLU’s greatest hits:

• provide credible sources,
• show that the ACLU does more than “defend” our enemies
• prove ACLU’s commitment to helping this country
• prove ACLU is far more qualified to interpret our constitution.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 127 (view)
 
UN EFFING BELIEVABLE, now you can't even state if you prefer a certain religion.............
Posted: 3/29/2010 1:19:09 PM
I'm sure you can explain why, if individual Americans were to discriminate by race, religion, and so forth, it would cause our communities to be segregated. I thought they were pretty well segregated already--or should federal law prohibit people of the same race or religion from concentrating in any one neighborhood, even if they want to?


I am surprised that you would ask me to explain this to you. There is a huge difference between choosing to concentrate into a neighborhood and choosing to discriminate others.

Its unfortunate that you would choose to be fixated on one of ACLU's cases. I was unable to locate information about the case you cited and suspect some of the opinions expressed are false or based on fabricated sources.

Here is a partial list of the ACLU's most important Supreme Court Victories:

1925 Gitlow v. New York Our first Supreme Court landmark. Though
upholding the defendant's conviction for distributing his call to
overthrow the government, the Court held, for the first time, that the
Fourteenth Amendment "incorporates" the free speech clause of the First
Amendment and is, therefore, applicable to the states.

1927 Whitney v. California Though the Court upheld a conviction for
membership in a group that advocated the overthrow of the state, Justice
Brandeis explained, in a separate opinion, that under the "clear and
present danger test" the strong presumption must be in favor of "more
speech, not enforced silence." That view, which ultimately prevailed,
laid the groundwork for modern First Amendment law.

1932 Powell v. Alabama This first of the "Scottsboro" cases to reach the
high Court resulted in the decision that eight African Americans accused
of raping two white women lacked effective counsel at their trial -- a
denial of due process. For the first time, in this case, constitutional
standards were applied to state criminal proceedings.

1935 Patterson v. Alabama In this second "Scottsboro" decision, the
Court sent the defendant's case back to state court on the ground that
he had been denied a fair trial by the exclusion of African Americans
from the jury list.

1937 DeJonge v. Oregon A landmark First Amendment case, in which the
Court held that the defendant's conviction under a state criminal
syndicalism statute merely for attending a peaceful Communist Party
rally violated his free speech rights.

1938 Lovell v. Griffin The Court held, in this case involving Jehovah's
Witnesses, that a local ordinance in Georgia prohibiting the
distribution of "literature of any kind" without a City Manager's
permit, violated the First Amendment.

1939 Hague v. CIO An important First Amendment case in which the Court
recognized a broad freedom to assemble in public forums, such as
"streets and parks," by invalidating the repressive actions of Jersey
City's anti-union Mayor, "Boss" Hague.

1946 Hannegan v. Esquire A major blow against censorship. The Court
severely limited the Postmaster General's power to withhold mailing
privileges for allegedly "offensive" material.

1947 Everson v. Board of Education A trailblazer: The Court found school
boards' reimbursement of the public transportation costs incurred by
parents whose children attended parochial schools constitutional, but
Justice Black's statement -- "In the words of Jefferson, the
clause...was intended to erect a `wall of separation between church and
State'..." -- was the Court's first major utterance on the meaning of
Establishment Clause.

1948 Shelley v. Kraemer An important civil rights decision that
invalidated restrictive covenants -- contractual agreements between
white homeowners in a residential area barring the sale of houses to
black people.

1949 Terminiello v. Chicago Protection for offensive speech expanded
with the Court's exoneration of an ex-priest convicted of disorderly
conduct for giving a racist, anti-semitic speech that "invited dispute."
Justice William O. Douglas, for the Court, noted that "the function of
free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute."

1952 Rochin v. California Reversing the conviction of a man whose
stomach had been forcibly pumped for drugs by a doctor at the behest of
police, the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause outlaws "conduct
that shocks the conscience."

1952 Burstyn v. Wilson Artistic freedom triumphed when the Court
overruled its 1915 holding that movies "are a business, pure and
simple," and decided that New York State's refusal to license "The
Miracle" violated the First Amendment. The state censor had labeled the
film "sacrilegious."

1954 Brown v. Board of Education In perhaps the most far-reaching
decision of this century, the Court declared racially segregated schools
unconstitutional and overruled the "separate but equal" doctrine
announced in its infamous 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.

1958 Kent v. Dulles The Court ruled that the State Department had
exceeded its authority in denying artist Rockwell Kent a passport
because he refused to sign a "noncommunist affidavit." The right to
travel, said the Court, is protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.

1958 Speiser v. Randall Arguing before the Court on his own behalf, ACLU
lawyer Lawrence Speiser won his challenge to a California law requiring
that veterans sign a loyalty oath to qualify for a property tax
exemption.

1961 Mapp v. Ohio A landmark, in which the Court ruled that the Fourth
Amendment's Exclusionary Rule, first applied to federal law enforcement
officers in 1914, applied to state and local police as well.

1961 Poe v. Ullman Though unsuccessful, this challenge to Connecticut's
ban on contraceptive sales set the stage for the Griswold decision of
1965. In a 33-page dissent, Justice John Harlan argued that the
challenged law was "an intolerable invasion of privacy in the conduct of
one of the most intimate concerns of an individual's private life."

1962 Engel v. Vitale In an 8-1 decision, the Court struck down the New
York State Regent's "nondenominational" school prayer, holding that "It
is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers."

1963 Abingdon School District v. Schempp Building on Engel in another 8-
1 decision, the Court struck down Pennsylvania's in-school Bible-reading
law as a violation of the First Amendment.

1963 Gideon v. Wainwright An indigent drifter from Florida made history
when, in a handwritten petition, he persuaded the Court that poor people
had the right to a state-appointed lawyer in criminal cases.

1964 Escobedo v. Illinois Invoking the Sixth Amendment right to counsel,
the Court threw out the confession of a man whose repeated requests to
see his lawyer, throughout many hours of police interrogation, were
ignored.

1964 New York Times v. Sullivan A victory for freedom of the press.
Public officials could not recover damages for defamation, ruled the
Court, unless they could prove that a newspaper had impugned them with
"actual malice." A city commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, had sued
over publication of a full-page ad written by civil rights activists.

1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio Justice Potter Stewart's famous statement, that
although he could not define "obscenity," he "knew it when he saw it,"
crowned the Court's overturning of a cinema owner's conviction for
showing "The Lovers," by Louis Malle.

1964 Reynolds v. Sims An historic civil rights decision that applied the
"one person, one vote" formula to state legislative districts, and that
was regarded by Chief Justice Earl Warren to be the most important
decision rendered during his tenure.

1965 U.S. v. Seeger In one of the first anti-Vietnam War decisions, the
Court extended conscientious objector status to those who do not
necessarily believe in a supreme being, but who oppose war based on
sincere beliefs that are equivalent to religious faith.

1965 Lamont v. Postmaster General A unanimous Court found
unconstitutional, under the First Amendment, a challenged Cold War law
that required the Postermaster General to detain and destroy all
unsealed mail from abroad deemed to be "communist political propaganda"
-- unless the addressee requested delivery in writing.

1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Among the 20th century's most influential
decisions. It invalidated a Connecticut law forbidding the use of
contraceptives on the ground that a right of "marital privacy," though
not specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, is protected by
"several fundamental constitutional guarantees."

1966 Miranda v. Arizona This famous decision established the "Miranda
warnings," a requirement that the police, before interrogating suspects,
must inform them of their rights. The Court embraced the ACLU's amicus
argument that a suspect in custody has both a Sixth Amendment right to
counsel and a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

1966 Bond v. Floyd The Court ordered Georgia's legislature to seat the
duly elected state senator, Julian Bond, a civil rights activist denied
his seat for publicly supporting Vietnam War draft resisters.
Criticizing U.S. foreign policy, said the Court, does not violate a
legislator's oath to uphold the Constitution.

1967 Keyishian v. Board of Regents A Cold War-inspired law, requiring
New York public school teachers to sign a loyalty oath, fell as a
violation of the First Amendment. The decision, capping off a series of
unsuccessful challenges to both federal and state loyalty and security
programs, rejected the doctrine that public employment is a "privilege"
to which government can attach whatever conditions it pleased.

1967 In re Gault The most important landmark for juveniles, it
established specific due process requirements for state delinquency
proceedings and stated, for the first time, the broad principle that
young persons have constitutional rights.

1967 Loving v. Virginia A civil rights landmark that invalidated the
anti-miscegination laws of Virginia and 15 other southern states. The
Court ruled that criminal bans on interracial marriage violate the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and "the freedom to
marry," which the Court called "one of the basic civil rights of
man"(sic).

1968 Epperson v. Arkansas The Court ruled that Arkansas had violated the
First Amendment, which forbids official religion, with its ban on
teaching "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of
animals."

1968 Levy v. Louisiana The Court invalidated a state law that denied an
illegitimate child the right to recover damages for a parent's death.
The ruling established the principle that the accidental circumstance of
a child's birth does not justify denials of rights.

1968 King v. Smith The court invalidated a "man in the house" rule that
denied welfare to children whose mother was living with a man,
unmarried. The decision benefited an estimated 500,000 poor children,
who had previously been excluded from aid.

1968 Washington v. Lee Alabama statutes requiring racial segregation in
the state's prisons and jails were declared unconstitutional under the
Fourteenth Amendment.

1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio After the ACLU's 50-year struggle against laws
punishing political advocacy, the Court now adopted our view of the
First Amendment -- that the government could only penalize direct
incitement to imminent lawless action -- and invalidated, in one fell
swoop, the Smith Act and all state sedition laws restricting radical
political groups.

1969 Tinker v. Des Moines A landmark lift for symbolic speech and
students' rights. The Court invalidated the suspension of public school
students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, writing
that students did not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

1970 Goldberg v. Kelly Setting in motion what has been called the
"procedural due process revolution," the Court ruled that welfare
recipients were entitled to notice and a hearing before the state could
terminate their benefits.

1971 Cohen v. California Reversed the conviction of a man who allegedly
disturbed the peace by wearing a jacket that bore the words, "**** the
draft," while walking through a courthouse corridor. The Court rejected
the notion that the state can prohibit speech just because it is
"offensive."
1971 U.S. v. New York Times The Pentagon Papers, a landmark among prior
restraint cases. The leaking of the Papers to the press for publication
by Daniel Ellsberg, a former Defense Department official, did not, said
the Court, justify an injunction against publication on national
security grounds.

1971 Reed v. Reed A breakthrough women's rights decision that struck
down a state law giving automatic preference to men over women as
administrators of decedents' estates. For the first time, the Court
ruled that sex-based -- like race-based -- classifactions violated the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

1971 U.S. v. Vuitch The Court's first abortion rights case, involving a
doctor's appeal of his conviction for performing an illegal abortion.
The Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute used to convict,
but expanded the "life and health of the woman" concept to include
psychological well-being, and ruled that the prosecution must prove the
abortion was not necessary for a woman's physical or mental health.

1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird Extending Griswold, this decision overturned
the conviction of a reproductive rights activist who had given an
unmarried woman in Massachusetts a contraceptive device. The Court held
that allowing distribution of contraceptives to married, but not
unmarried, people violated the Equal Protection Clause.

1972 Furman v. Georgia In this seminal case, the Court found that the
"arbitrary and capricious" application of state death penalty statutes
violated the Eighth Amendment's stricture against cruel and unusual
punishment. Hundreds of executions were held up while states tried to
fashion new laws that would pass constitutional muster.

1973 Frontiero v. Richardson Another victory for women's rights. The
Court struck down a federal law that would not permit a woman in the
armed forces to claim her husband as a "dependent" unless he depended on
her for more than half of his support, while a serviceman could claim
"dependent" status for his wife regardless of actual dependency.

1973 Holtzman v. Schlesinger A dramatic lawsuit, brought by the ACLU for
a New York congresswoman, to halt the bombing of Cambodia as an
unconstitutional Presidential usurpation of Congress's authority to
declare war. After a federal order to stop the bombing was stayed on
appeal, the ACLU sent a lawyer across country to the remote vacation
hideaway of Justice William O. Douglas -- who vacated the stay and,
though later overruled, succeeded in halting the bombing for a few
hours.

1973 Roe v. Wade/ Doe v. Bolton One of the Court's most significant
decisions, Roe erased all existing criminal abortion laws and recognized
a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. In Doe, the
companion case, the Court ruled that whether an abortion is "necessary"
is the attending physician's call, to be made in light of all factors
relevant to a woman's well-being.

1974 U.S. v. Nixon This test of Presidential power involved Nixon's
effort to withhold crucial Watergate tapes from Special Prosecutor Leon
Jaworski. In the only amicus brief filed, the ACLU argued: "There is no
proposition more dangerous to the health of a constitutional democracy
than the notion that an elected head of state is above the law and
beyond the reach of judicial review." The Court agreed and ordered the
tapes handed over.

1975 Goss v. Lopez A victory for students' rights that invalidated a
state law authorizing a public school principal to suspend a student for
up to ten days without a hearing. The Court ruled that students are
entitled to notice and a hearing before a significant disciplinary
action can be taken against them.

1975 O'Connor v. Donaldson The Court's first ruling on the rights of
mental patients supported a non-violent man who had been confined
against his will in a state hospital for 15 years. Mental illness alone,
said the Court, could not justify "simple custodial confinement" on an
indefinite basis.

1976 Buckley v. Valeo Freedom of speech and association won a partial
victory in this challenge to the limits on campaign spending imposed by
amendments to the Federal Elections Campaign Act. The Court struck down
the Act's restrictions on spending "relative to a candidate," and its
required disclosure of $100-plus political contributions.

1978 Smith v. Collin The peculiar facts of this, one of the ACLU's most
controversial First Amendment lawsuits ever, attracted enormous
attention: American Nazis wanted to march through a Chicago suburb,
Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The ACLU's challenge to
the village's ban on the march was ultimately upheld.

1978 In re Primus An ACLU cooperating attorney -- a sharecropper's
daughter and the first black woman to finish the University of South
Carolina Law School -- was reprimanded for "improper solicitation" by
the state supreme court after she encouraged some poor women to
challenge the state's sterilization of welfare recipients. Exonerating
her, the high Court distinguished between lawyers who solicit "for
pecuniary gain"and those who solicit to "further political and
ideological goals through associational activity."

1980 Prune Yard Shopping Center v. Robins A victory for freedom of
expression. The Court rejected shopping mall owners' claim that their
property rights compelled reversal of the California Supreme Court's
requirement that a shopping center allow distribution of political
pamphlets on its premises.

1983 Bob Jones University v. United States The Court rejected two
fundamentalist Christian schools' claim, supported by the Reagan Justice
Department, that the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty
forbade the denial of income tax exemptions to educational and religious
institutions that practice racial discrimination. Instead, the Court
held that the IRS is empowered to set rules enforcing a "settled public
policy" against racial discrimination in education.

1985 Wallace v. Jaffree This important church-state separation decision
found Alabama's "moment of silence" law, which required public school
children to take a moment "for meditation or voluntary prayer," in
violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

1989 Texas v. Johnson This First Amendment invalidation of the Texas
flag desecration statute provoked the newly inaugurated George Bush to
propose a federal ban on flag burning ormutilation. Congress swiftly
obliged, but the Court struck down the law a year later in United States
v. Eichman -- in which the ACLU also filed a brief. Both rulings were
big victories for symbolic political speech.

1990 Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health The Court's
first "right-to-die" case, in which the ACLU represented the family of a
woman who had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than seven
years. Although the Court did not go as far as the ACLU urged, it did
recognize living wills as clear and convincing evidence of a patient's
wishes.

1992 R.A.V. v. Wisconsin An important First Amendment victory. A
unanimous Court struck down a local law banning the display, on public
or private property, of any symbol "that arouses anger, alarm or
resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or
gender."

1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey A critical, though less than total,
victory for reproductive freedom. While upholding parts of
Pennsylvania's abortion restriction, the Court also reaffirmed the
"central holding" of Roe v. Wade: that abortions performed prior to
viability cannot be criminalized.

1992 Lee v. Weisman The Court ruled that any officially-sanctioned
prayer at public school graduation ceremonies violates the Establishment
Clause.

1992 Hudson v. McMillian The Court upheld a Louisiana prisoner's claim
that three corrections officers had violated his Eighth Amendment right
to be spared cruel and unusual punishment by beating him while he was
shackled and handcuffed. The Court held that the unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain is an appropriate standard in prisoners' Eighth
Amendment cases.

1993 J.E.B. v. T.B. In this women's rights victory, the Court held that
a prosecutor could not use peremptory challenges to disqualify potential
jurors based on their gender.

1993 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah A religious freedom
victory for unusual, minority religions. The Court held that local
ordinances adopted by the City of Hialeah, banning the ritual slaughter
of animals as practiced by the Santeria religion, but permitting such
secular activities as hunting and fishing, violated the First
Amendment's Establishment Clause.

1993 Wisconsin v. Mitchell The Court agreed with the ACLU that
Wisconsin's "hate crime" statute, providing for additional criminal
penalties if a jury found that a defendant "intentionally selected" a
victim based on "race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation,
national origin or ancestry," did not violate the First Amendment
because the statute punished racist acts, not racist thoughts.

1994 Ladue v. Gilleo Unanimously, the Court struck down an Ohio town's
ordinance that had barred a homeowner from posting a sign in her bedroom
window that said, "Say No to War in the Gulf -- Call Congress Now!"

1995 Lebron v. Amtrak Extended the First Amendment to corporations
created by, and under the control of, the government in the case of an
artist who argued successfully that Amtrak had been wrong to reject his
billboard display because of its political message.
-----
Copyright 1996, The American Civil Liberties Union

-----
Brought to you by - THE 'LECTRIC LAW LIBRARY
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 122 (view)
 
UN EFFING BELIEVABLE, now you can't even state if you prefer a certain religion.............
Posted: 3/29/2010 11:04:33 AM
For reasons I've already explained, I think private parties should be able to discriminate against anyone they please because of race, religion, or any other reason.


This is already happening. I think regressing to the level where ads are printed " No martians allowed" would simply be wrong. If ads were allowed to be advertised as such, our communities would be segregated. I wonder how Mr. K would have felt if he came across an ad discriminating against his mother?

Blaming the ACLU for protecting civil liberties simply shows a level of ignorance. For 86 years, the ACLU has challenged U.S., state, county, and local governments in an effort to make sure that the Bill of Rights and the principles that guide it are consistently protected.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Cali to vote on legalizing and taxing marijuana in November
Posted: 3/28/2010 2:02:26 AM

Ever see anyone falling down smoked? Ever?


Mr Blue,

Yes, I have seen a motorcycle rider forget to put his feet down at a read light. That poor chap was too stoned (no drinking) to ride. I heard a story about a chap who decided to spark one up to help deal with his divorce. While high he started wailing and acting like a fool. Did you hear about the cop that overdosed on marijuana? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozecHipyIVY
The effects of marijuana varies from person to person.

Not too long ago I would have agreed with you. Unfortunately, the amount of retardation I have witnessed from dispensaries have altered my stance.

The marijuana available now is more potent. There are also concerns regarding mold, pesticides, and modification of marijuana. For example, cocaine can be modified into crack. According to the LA times, some dispensaries are creating different ways to consume marijuana.

In conclusion I would support decriminalization of marijuana, but would oppose full legalization.
 
Show ALL Forums