[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t think she will recuse herself on this. This is Barry’s baby, his pride and joy, I think he will pull out all the stops on this. Look at the prostitution we already saw on this, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and the others we don’t even know about.
A funny thing about the ruling, while Obama has been praising Reagan, the judge who ruled on the Health Care Bill was put on the bench by Reagan. [/quote]
He also ruled on page 75 that Obama MUST STOP implementing the program. Obama’s minions announced they’re going to begin implementing anyway; a direct breaking of a federal judges order!
I hope he gets put on trial for this criminality. That whole administration is nothing but criminals. Put 'em all in prison.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t think she will recuse herself on this. This is Barry’s baby, his pride and joy, I think he will pull out all the stops on this. Look at the prostitution we already saw on this, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and the others we don’t even know about.
A funny thing about the ruling, while Obama has been praising Reagan, the judge who ruled on the Health Care Bill was put on the bench by Reagan. [/quote]
He also ruled on page 75 that Obama MUST STOP implementing the program. Obama’s minions announced they’re going to begin implementing anyway; a direct breaking of a federal judges order!
I hope he gets put on trial for this criminality. That whole administration is nothing but criminals. Put 'em all in prison.[/quote]
At what point can we declare treason ? Impeachment?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Nobody wanted civil rights either.
That managed to get through.[/quote]
Dems didn’t want civil rights.[/quote]
Stop it with your rhetoric, oh wait that’s true. [/quote]
We all know the parties were a bit different back then.
Liberals wanted it. And as usual, we dragged the rest of the country, kicking and screaming, forward.[/quote]
As in, LBJ stalled as long as he could and had it reluctantly passed when he was president with the rematable claim that he would “make sure that those niggers will vote democrat for the next 200 years”?
But of course, there were “more nigger votes than white votes” in parts of the South.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Nobody wanted civil rights either.
That managed to get through.[/quote]
Dems didn’t want civil rights.[/quote]
Stop it with your rhetoric, oh wait that’s true. [/quote]
We all know the parties were a bit different back then.
Liberals wanted it. And as usual, we dragged the rest of the country, kicking and screaming, forward.[/quote]
As in, LBJ stalled as long as he could and had it reluctantly passed when he was president with the rematable claim that he would “make sure that those niggers will vote democrat for the next 200 years”?
But of course, there were “more nigger votes than white votes” in parts of the South.
Yeah, I agree, that was pure progressivism.
[/quote]
I remember that quote from LBJ. It still surprizes me that anyone who thinks a politician from the South (at that time) wanted to do anything for the black man. Its all about power.
I’m not dumb enough to think it won’t pass, but I’m very happy to see it frustrated. It means there is still a rational element ready to fill the void when the left collapses.
Without a government to enforce segregation and other Jim Crow laws it is difficult to imagine how these people would have been oppressed in the same way they were. I understand there would have been non-governmental violence (which happened anyway), but it wouldn’t have been institutionally implemented. The police and national guard would then need to do their job and step in and defend the menaced people.
The notion that the government GAVE African-Americans civil rights is completely laughable. It was government that DENIED them in the first place (in fairness it was this way since our countries inception). How the government can be made to look like the savior in this scenario blows me away.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Without a government to enforce segregation and other Jim Crow laws it is difficult to imagine how these people would have been oppressed in the same way they were. I understand there would have been non-governmental violence (which happened anyway), but it wouldn’t have been institutionally implemented. The police and national guard would then need to do their job and step in and defend the menaced people.
The notion that the government GAVE African-Americans civil rights is completely laughable. It was government that DENIED them in the first place (in fairness it was this way since our countries inception). How the government can be made to look like the savior in this scenario blows me away. [/quote]
It is the same logic as if I am choking someone then release them and say I saved their life.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Without a government to enforce segregation and other Jim Crow laws it is difficult to imagine how these people would have been oppressed in the same way they were. I understand there would have been non-governmental violence (which happened anyway), but it wouldn’t have been institutionally implemented. The police and national guard would then need to do their job and step in and defend the menaced people.
The notion that the government GAVE African-Americans civil rights is completely laughable. It was government that DENIED them in the first place (in fairness it was this way since our countries inception). How the government can be made to look like the savior in this scenario blows me away. [/quote]
It is the same logic as if I am choking someone then release them and say I saved their life.[/quote]
I suppose you could say the FEDERAL government gave them their rights via strong arming the state governments, but ultimately it was some form of government which denied them their natural rights.
Governments can’t give rights, they can only acknowledge them. You could say state governments were forced to acknowledge them, but no person or governments ever gave another person rights.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Governments can’t give rights, they can only acknowledge them. You could say state governments were forced to acknowledge them, but no person or governments ever gave another person rights.[/quote]
Probably a case to be argued against natural rights, but I am in agreement with you and I am not in the mood to be the Devil’s advocate. By “gave” I meant restored their rights.