"Whites Only" alive and well in Alabama

[Sterlingdog]

What do you feel about the 19th ammendment??

Women, unfortunately, tend to vote more liberally than men. However, the 19th amendment has allowed intelligent women like Ayn Rand and Ann Coulter to express themselves. My views on this one are mixed.

So you  believe that the only people who should have the right to vote are the ones who agree with you?  That's very open minded of you.  Doesn't sound very American though, does it?  The people have the right to be heard, but only certain people, when they are saying the right thing.

Reminds me of a quote..."All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

[Eazy E]

Stores still have the right to keep people out without shirts or people with pets.

If they are allowed to keep out people not wearing shirts then they should be allowed to keep out people who's skin colour they don't like?

You've got to be fuckin kidding me.

[jarmo]

Walk is "funnier" than I thought.

You're aware of the fact that you can put on a shirt, but changing your skin color is a bit trickier right?

Woman who agree with you should be allowed to have some rights, but only as long as they're not too liberal?


You're starting to sound like somebody who would've loved to live in a Taliban ruled country. 



/jarmo

[Izzy]

What do you feel about the 19th ammendment??

Women, unfortunately, tend to vote more liberally than men.

Disregarding ur blatant sexism i feel i should mention that women, historically, have always tended to vote more conservatively, much of the time

[Jamie]

If I were an employer, I would hire the best employees, regardless of race. However, I don't care about competitors who would do otherwise. That's their business. I don't look at racism as either good or bad, it's something that can be inutil or appropriate for different cultures. Open minded, you know?

I'm sorry if I'm wrong but did you just call racism "open minded"?

[SLCPUNK]

Walk: As I have stated before I think you just say these things to stir the pot and get attention. The worst thing about this is that you could influence a younger reader to condone this racist type of thought. So, unfortunately it is important to respond to you, and set you straight.

Maybe you should think of it that way? Ask yourself, is this doing any good to post this? Could it influence a younger poster to believe this utter crap?

[Jamie]

That's not what I'd be worried about, I think any child over the age of 8 with a proper moral upbringing would know racism is a load of bullshit.

What I'd be worried about is if there are any posters here that happen to be black reading this shit and taking severe offence. Because I'm white as snow and am still disgusted.

[SLCPUNK]

That's not what I'd be worried about, I think any child over the age of 8 with a proper moral upbringing would know racism is a load of bullshit.

What I'd be worried about is if there are any posters here that happen to be black reading this shit and taking severe offence. Because I'm white as snow and am still disgusted.

Yea I agree. Although sometimes younger people can be swayed, even if the subject of racism is absurd.

I am slightly offended by the racist shit here, but at the same time it is just kind of pathetic and in the minority. This is just a cowardly place to voice his opinioin. I'd put money down that he doesn't talk this shit in public, in front of people.

[Surfrider]

And their "treatment" is simply inhumane. I don't know about the US, but thankfully in Australia we have laws and anti discriminations acts, so employees don't have to put up with that crap. Employers make the rules sure, but the line is drawn when the rules involve discrimination on the base of race. That is simply disgraceful.

Look at the bigger picture. It's the government telling a free market business what's good for it. Race isn't the issue here. The issue is respect for a private business handling private matters how it wants to and government getting in the way of it. If the workers can't agree with the employer, they can just leave; that's it. However, they're using the government's clout to impose their views. This isn't what government is designed for. Somewhere here, tax dollars are being wasted...

No it is not you idiot.

It is the government upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was handed down by the Supreme Court.



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. Labor Organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Actually, it was not handed down by the Supreme Court.  It was passed by Congess.  Absent such legislation, the Constitution does not prohibit private discrimination.

[pilferk]

And their "treatment" is simply inhumane. I don't know about the US, but thankfully in Australia we have laws and anti discriminations acts, so employees don't have to put up with that crap. Employers make the rules sure, but the line is drawn when the rules involve discrimination on the base of race. That is simply disgraceful.

Look at the bigger picture. It's the government telling a free market business what's good for it. Race isn't the issue here. The issue is respect for a private business handling private matters how it wants to and government getting in the way of it. If the workers can't agree with the employer, they can just leave; that's it. However, they're using the government's clout to impose their views. This isn't what government is designed for. Somewhere here, tax dollars are being wasted...

No it is not you idiot.

It is the government upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was handed down by the Supreme Court.



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. Labor Organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Actually, it was not handed down by the Supreme Court.? It was passed by Congess.? Absent such legislation, the Constitution does not prohibit private discrimination.

In addition, there is oftentimes wording added to legislation that exempts secular organizations from being held up to this.  In other words, Catholic organizations are able to hire ONLY Catholics if the organization is secular in nature (ie: a Catholic school or a Catholic Head Start program).

[Surfrider]

And their "treatment" is simply inhumane. I don't know about the US, but thankfully in Australia we have laws and anti discriminations acts, so employees don't have to put up with that crap. Employers make the rules sure, but the line is drawn when the rules involve discrimination on the base of race. That is simply disgraceful.

Look at the bigger picture. It's the government telling a free market business what's good for it. Race isn't the issue here. The issue is respect for a private business handling private matters how it wants to and government getting in the way of it. If the workers can't agree with the employer, they can just leave; that's it. However, they're using the government's clout to impose their views. This isn't what government is designed for. Somewhere here, tax dollars are being wasted...

No it is not you idiot.

It is the government upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was handed down by the Supreme Court.



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. Labor Organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Actually, it was not handed down by the Supreme Court.? It was passed by Congess.? Absent such legislation, the Constitution does not prohibit private discrimination.

In addition, there is oftentimes wording added to legislation that exempts secular organizations from being held up to this.? In other words, Catholic organizations are able to hire ONLY Catholics if the organization is secular in nature (ie: a Catholic school or a Catholic Head Start program).

In fact, such groups are almost constitutionally allowed to discriminate.  It is part of the First Amendment's freedom of association.  For example, the famous case upholding this was the boy scout case allowing them to prohibit gay scout leaders.  Of course, this only applies in a narrow context where interstate commerce is not involved, among other things of course.

[pilferk]

And their "treatment" is simply inhumane. I don't know about the US, but thankfully in Australia we have laws and anti discriminations acts, so employees don't have to put up with that crap. Employers make the rules sure, but the line is drawn when the rules involve discrimination on the base of race. That is simply disgraceful.

Look at the bigger picture. It's the government telling a free market business what's good for it. Race isn't the issue here. The issue is respect for a private business handling private matters how it wants to and government getting in the way of it. If the workers can't agree with the employer, they can just leave; that's it. However, they're using the government's clout to impose their views. This isn't what government is designed for. Somewhere here, tax dollars are being wasted...

No it is not you idiot.

It is the government upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was handed down by the Supreme Court.



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. Labor Organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Actually, it was not handed down by the Supreme Court.? It was passed by Congess.? Absent such legislation, the Constitution does not prohibit private discrimination.

In addition, there is oftentimes wording added to legislation that exempts secular organizations from being held up to this.? In other words, Catholic organizations are able to hire ONLY Catholics if the organization is secular in nature (ie: a Catholic school or a Catholic Head Start program).

In fact, such groups are almost constitutionally allowed to discriminate.? It is part of the First Amendment's freedom of association.? For example, the famous case upholding this was the boy scout case allowing them to prohibit gay scout leaders.? Of course, this only applies in a narrow context where interstate commerce is not involved, among other things of course.

Exactly.  Actually, the language I spoke of is added mostly to federal funding bills, since, usually, federal funding is not allowed if there is discrimination (witness the boy scout case you spoke of).  They specifically put in language that allows secular organizations to recieve the funding EVEN THOUGH they only hire based on religious beliefs.

[Walk]

Walk: As I have stated before I think you just say these things to stir the pot and get attention. The worst thing about this is that you could influence a younger reader to condone this racist type of thought. So, unfortunately it is important to respond to you, and set you straight.

Maybe you should think of it that way? Ask yourself, is this doing any good to post this? Could it influence a younger poster to believe this utter crap?

I believe that positivist thoughts are healthy for a philosophical mind. Absolutist thoughts are reserved for God, through the Bible, since we sinners are incapable of absolute moral judgement. There you go; there's the "worldview" I have. The whole point of this is humility, which encourages growth and wisdom. It's troublesome when people accept a questionable absolute as truth and expect the government to enforce this truth. The people who do this are likely unable to support it themselves, so they use the state as intervention to grind it into everyone elses' faces.

It's ironic that an individualistic society can behave this way. I think it's an individual's right to make stupid decisions (as well as good ones!) and likely run out of business or lose profits over them. The government shouldn't get involved here, since it always ends up in a courtroom and the lawyers win. In fact, many countries don't even have a concept of free speech, so hate speech can be avoided. It's just my fault for being a freedom loving American. I think even hate speech, like war protestors who hate our soldiers, should be allowed, even if frowned on and ultimately ignored.

As for younger posters, let them make up their own minds about things. Hopefully they'll realize someday how much of a mistake socialism is. I hope states' rights will become a bigger issue if (when?) terrorism is somehow kicked out of the limelight. Let cultures set their own value systems and don't use government, especially federal government, to homogenize it all.

[Jamie]

Walk: As I have stated before I think you just say these things to stir the pot and get attention. The worst thing about this is that you could influence a younger reader to condone this racist type of thought. So, unfortunately it is important to respond to you, and set you straight.

Maybe you should think of it that way? Ask yourself, is this doing any good to post this? Could it influence a younger poster to believe this utter crap?

I believe that positivist thoughts are healthy for a philosophical mind. Absolutist thoughts are reserved for God, through the Bible, since we sinners are incapable of absolute moral judgement. There you go; there's the "worldview" I have. The whole point of this is humility, which encourages growth and wisdom. It's troublesome when people accept a questionable absolute as truth and expect the government to enforce this truth. The people who do this are likely unable to support it themselves, so they use the state as intervention to grind it into everyone elses' faces.

It's ironic that an individualistic society can behave this way. I think it's an individual's right to make stupid decisions (as well as good ones!) and likely run out of business or lose profits over them. The government shouldn't get involved here, since it always ends up in a courtroom and the lawyers win. In fact, many countries don't even have a concept of free speech, so hate speech can be avoided. It's just my fault for being a freedom loving American. I think even hate speech, like war protestors who hate our soldiers, should be allowed, even if frowned on and ultimately ignored.

As for younger posters, let them make up their own minds about things. Hopefully they'll realize someday how much of a mistake socialism is. I hope states' rights will become a bigger issue if (when?) terrorism is somehow kicked out of the limelight. Let cultures set their own value systems and don't use government, especially federal government, to homogenize it all.

What you just said in no way answers the questions you were asked. You class racism as positivist thoughts? And equality as absolutist thoughts? Very rarely is their a right and wrong on issues regarding opinion, except on racism and other forms of discrimination. You say absolutist thoughts are reserved for the bible. What the hell does that mean? You justify racism by saying, humans are incabable of complete moral judgement. So humans being imperfect specimens is a valid excuse to hate other races? You also say "it's troublesome when people accept a questionable absolute as truth and expect government to enforce this truth." Therefor calling equality a questionable absolute, and later call yourself "a freedom loving American", your contradicting yourself! You question the state's attempt to enforce freedom, if the state did not try to enforce freedom in any way where do you think the world would be now? Slavery? White Supremecy? The government may not do a perfect job enforcing these laws, but it's their duty to!

It's ironic that an individualist society can behave this way. I think it's an individual's right to make stupid decisions

Even if those decisions affect someone else's lives in a bad way. And impede on someone's human rights?

I think even hate speech, like war protesters who hate our soldiers, should be allowed, even if frowned on and ultimately ignored

First off, the majority of American war protesters care about their soldiers. Thus wanting them home from a war that's killing them. And if hate speech was allowed would you participate in such an act. And could you look a black man in the face and call him a 'nigger'. Somehow I doubt it.

As for young posters, let them make up their own minds on things.

Is that how you would go about raising a child? Don't teach it any moral lessons or try to set any examples? If you did how do you think that child would turn out? Pretty fucked up if you ask me.

Let cultures set their own value systems and don't use government, especially federal government, to homogenize it all

That statement completely opposes the reason your beloved GW Bush went into Iraq in the first place.

[pilferk]

Let cultures set their own value systems and don't use government, especially federal government, to homogenize it all

That statement completely opposes the reason your beloved GW Bush went into Iraq in the first place.

Of course, you mean after the first two reasons fell through.

[SLCPUNK]

And their "treatment" is simply inhumane. I don't know about the US, but thankfully in Australia we have laws and anti discriminations acts, so employees don't have to put up with that crap. Employers make the rules sure, but the line is drawn when the rules involve discrimination on the base of race. That is simply disgraceful.

Look at the bigger picture. It's the government telling a free market business what's good for it. Race isn't the issue here. The issue is respect for a private business handling private matters how it wants to and government getting in the way of it. If the workers can't agree with the employer, they can just leave; that's it. However, they're using the government's clout to impose their views. This isn't what government is designed for. Somewhere here, tax dollars are being wasted...

No it is not you idiot.

It is the government upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was handed down by the Supreme Court.



Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. The Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Sex includes pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. It makes it illegal for employers to discriminate in hiring, discharging, compensation, or terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Employment agencies may not discriminate when hiring or referring applicants. Labor Organizations are also prohibited from basing membership or union classifications on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Actually, it was not handed down by the Supreme Court.  It was passed by Congess.  Absent such legislation, the Constitution does not prohibit private discrimination.

In addition, there is oftentimes wording added to legislation that exempts secular organizations from being held up to this.  In other words, Catholic organizations are able to hire ONLY Catholics if the organization is secular in nature (ie: a Catholic school or a Catholic Head Start program).

In fact, such groups are almost constitutionally allowed to discriminate.  It is part of the First Amendment's freedom of association.  For example, the famous case upholding this was the boy scout case allowing them to prohibit gay scout leaders.  Of course, this only applies in a narrow context where interstate commerce is not involved, among other things of course.

Hmm... I stand corrected and will read more. Although I admit it is not a subject that is of that much interest to me, hence my mistake.

[Walk]

That statement completely opposes the reason your beloved GW Bush went into Iraq in the first place.

Saddam had clerics write the Koran in their own blood. He abused the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. His policies favored the minority sunni group. He was a poor leader.

Democracy isn't imposing anything on the Iraqis. It's allowing them more control of their land.

[SLCPUNK]

That statement completely opposes the reason your beloved GW Bush went into Iraq in the first place.

 It's allowing them more control of their land.

Sure it is....on our terms, with our puppet government....

And they asked for our help when?

[gilld1]

Actually, I think they asked for our help in 1991 to overthrow Sadam but we were too busy patting ourselves on the back and HW had that election thing and a recession.  Sorry you are Shiite out of luck!

[Holy War]

Actually, I think they asked for our help in 1991 to overthrow Sadam but we were too busy patting ourselves on the back and HW had that election thing and a recession.? Sorry you are Shiite out of luck!

....could be at least one reason to finish what we started.