You don't even know what Loving v. Virginia was, and I have to waste time answering every stupid little strawman you trot out? Jesus. In the future, when you're baffled by something, take the 0.8 seconds to run it through Google. Assuming you don't see a turban off in the distance and hide under your desk the rest of the day. I gave your weak-ass busing whine the time of day - I should have asked if you were pro-school vouchers, then asked what the difference was. Yes, I do draw a distinction between "You don't have to be racist to oppose this, but it helps" and "You cannot oppose this without being racist." Yes, most of the anti-civil rights crew on this board aren't willing or capable of telling the difference. So go off and be offended. Just don't expect actual Americans to care, and don't be surprised when people like yourself and Dr. Paul get called on your bullshit.
Your mistake was not in the year. Your mistake was in your understanding of the case. The elected officials of Charlotte-Mecklenburg were happy with the system. A minority of parents sued and got a right wing judge. Busing worked there.
Loving v. Virgina was about interracial marriage. It doesn't matter and I don't believe interracial marriage has been addressed. I don't think the government should be involved in marriage, except in the case of minors.
It doesn't matter, because the Supreme Court struck down laws in states where oh yes it mattered a lot, thank you. Dr. Paul wants states to be able to pass such laws, and believes the Supreme Court should be powerless to intervene. Oh, Paul hasn't revised this yet? It seems to be a misquotation from a debate, or a quote from a Stossel interview taken out of context. In any case, once someone tells Dr. Paul he has just come out in favor of the legalization of incestuous marriages, polygamy, and marriages of convenience so that immigrants can obtain citizenship, I think we'll hear some, ah, clarifications.
A history of the development of commerce clause jurisprudence that would provide context to the discussion.
Well what would you be refering to? Because I don't know of another case before Katzenbach v. McClung that extended commerce to the third person. Would you care to help me? Have you ever read this? It's a well reasoned opinion by someone you surely hate but it says what I have been trying to say in more and better words http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm
Where has Ron Paul said he wants states to be able to pass laws that would make interracial marriage legal, even though I highly doubt that would ever happen. Further, I don't really care what his thoughts are on marriage because he would be the president and the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage.
No, not really. I just don't really want to debate the issue based on your warm fuzzies of what should and shouldn't be interstate commerce. Katzenbach didn't come out of the blue anymore than Brown did, so I'm disinclined to discuss it in either legal or historic isolation, particularly when dannytoone and Gore vs. 3000 are weighing in with their highly informed musings.
Of course Katzenbach v. McClung didn't come from nowhere. It came from an incorrect interpretation of the constitution in the civil rights act. Brown came from the properly ratified 14th amendment. See the difference?
Pollster Dates N/Pop Giuliani Huckabee McCain Paul Romney Thompson ARG 12/20-23/07 600 LV 14 23 17 10 21 3 Excellent news for Ron Paul. Putting aside his peculiar ideas, he continues to impress. The potential Fred supporters (aside from ITN) are back with McCain. I really realy hope people scrutinize the GOP VP nominee. Unless Romney wins the nomination, there's a huge chance that person will be promoted.
OK. So, a quick Google search tells me that the U.S. is one of the lowest nations in giving of foreign aid in comparison to GNP. The highest giving nations are ones like Norway and Sweden, who I don't see as having anywhere near the foreign diplomacy issues that the U.S. does. My rough draft conclusion from this is 1) Ron Paul's suggestion that we cease foreign aid is a wacky radical departure from modern nations; (2) Our foreign aid is not a significant issue for our economic well-being; and (3) foreign aid does not cause or account for our issues with international diplomacy. Thus, despite the fact that Ron Paul is hunky-dory with cozying up with racist ideologies here at home, he's also a fruitcake when it comes to foreign relations. Refutations?
It's not easy being white.... When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow or black Or something much more colorful like that
It's not easy being white It's not easy being brown All this pressure to be bright I got kids all over town ....hey, where'd the guy go? (GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PUPPETS)
Because those countries don't have near the GNP that the U.S. does. If you're getting $5 billion from someone, I'm thinking the percentage of that country's GNP that represents is of secondary importance to you to the fact you now have $5 billion. It may be a departure from other countries, but so what. We should do what's best for us. And I don't see how bribing other countries with money taken from Americans is a good thing. It may not be a huge percentage of the budget, but again, if it's a bad idea, then we shouldn't do it regardless. And I suppose that all those Muslims in the Middle East don't care that we give foreign aid to Israel for example. It's such a small thing, no big deal, right? Yeah, RP cozies up to racists, right. Whatever.
I gave you an assignment, prove your assertion that Ron Paul wants to return to the pre-Civil War South. So do that, or go away.
I fail to see how not getting along with other countries is what's best for us, but I'll trust you to elucidate.
Here you go. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jim crow How many of those definitions limit "jim crow" the way you do? Into law? You mean by the fact that I'm an attorney? This is all sound and fury signifying nothing. The fact that a black person can now sit at a lunch counter or rent a motel room in Atlanta is concrete proof of a positive result of the Act. I can guarantee you that the majority of black people couldn't give a crap if some white people "resent" the laws. The fact that the law now requires them to be treated as equals is proof-positive of the benefits of which I'm speaking. The intuitive gymnastics in which you engage to avoid this simple point is amazing. Please provide links to your data. This response is idiotic. You should be worried about your own intellectual failings. It is a fact....plain as day.....that not all law is enacted for purely deterrence reasons. Take any basic legal philosophy course....which you've obviously never had.....and you'll learn that some acts are considered inately harmful in and of themselves and thus are punished without regard to whether the punishment provides a deterrence. Yes, deterrence is hoped for....but it's not the only consideration. And that's not exclusively a liberal or a conservative take on legal philosophy. I'm surprised you have such trouble grasping that. Well, you didn't answer my question but from the above, it looks like you're commenting on Putnam's study. And it also looks like you've just focused on the second point of his study but have ignored the first and the third....just as Putnam complained people were doing.
Rep. We shouldn't giving any countries any money. That money should be returned to the tax payers...or at least used in someway to help improve our infrastructure.
Both of you are overly simplistic and dismissive of the process of diplomacy. It might be in your best interests to go around at a party and pick food off of other people's plates, then sit in the corner and gorge yourself, but it's not going to win you any friends and influence people. A quick Google search reveals that foreign aid is not simply a product of the Cold War, but rather an extraordinarily common undertaking that every nation engages in to a greater or lesser extent. We're not debating whether we should stop something that only superpowers do. Ron Paul has suggested we disengage ourselves from a diplomatic process that the entire world follows, for whatever reason. If you contend that disengaging from the world is the "right" thing to do, please explain with something other than a simplistic throwaway sentence.
I've made it pretty clear throughtout these Paul threads that I think being discriminated against solely because of the color of your skin is a harm....whether that harm is manifested as limited economic, political, or social opportunities. But good job avoiding giving your own answer.