Previous 31 - 40 Next
In response to:

Civil Rights Act: Fact or Legend

Marek3 Wrote: May 12, 2014 10:37 PM
Fully aware of the Supreme Court Decision... they also decided that obamacare is constitutional, and of course such things as Dred Scott or that growing Wheat on your own Property constitutes Inter State Commerce. While I understand that today it is true that Supreme Court does in fact changes the Constitution as they please, that doesn't make it right. Which is why Supreme Court never had such right under Constitution they acquired it in Madison vs Marbury in 1803..something that should have been immediately destroyed by Congress. We have Oligarchy today of 9 people in Black Robes. That is true today but it isn't right.
In response to:

Civil Rights Act: Fact or Legend

Marek3 Wrote: May 12, 2014 12:04 PM
First and foremost some elements of the Civil Right bill should be turned into Amendment. Under no circumstances should discrimination based on Race be ever allowed by Government in America. There are however few issues with the Civil Right bill. 1) It goes too far into giving Government power over Private property. Being racist is an individual right, just like it is right of a person to belong to Socialist or any other hate group. Disagreeing with a racist isn't good enough reason to deny their rights to be so. Private property should be sacrosanct if someone, as an individual, wants to discriminate that is their business. For instance if Black wants to only sell their house to another Black (and that is true for any minorities) that is their business. It will also be their loss if they chose less money for their property. Just like it is businesses right to refuse service to anybody for any reason. The money that is lost is theirs. We must remember that freedom includes freedom to do things that we personally disagree with or even hate. Who needs freedom when someone does what you agree with? 2) It introduced forced school integration. This is nonsensical problem with our school systems isn't based on racial composition. It is empirically that such did nothing to help any school, but it certainly did hurt kids who have to go God only knows how far to get to school. 3) passing of the act was outside of Constitutional means. Federal Government simply had no right to pass good portion of the bill. Sure most of the bill was good legislation, such as prohibiting discrimination by the State. However doing bad thing in hopes of achieving good results is never a good idea. This should be passed as an amendment.. Bottom line is that GOVERNMENT (Be it local or Federal) Must not be racist. It must never engage in any judging (for or against this includes affirmative action) of a person based on skin color. PERIOD. This needs to be enshrined (and it already is by the 14th Amendment, Jim Crow Laws should never have been Constitutional) in the Constitution and under no circumstances violated. The basic need for Government is to protect Individual rights, and racism violates that basic right. However we shouldn't be to proud of the Civil Right legislation because it broke people's Civil Liberties, it was unConstitutional, and it did nothing to help those who needed most.
In response to:

The High Cost of Liberalism

Marek3 Wrote: Apr 22, 2014 11:52 AM
Minorities are only precious during elections; after words they best stay silent and out of the way, preferably somewhere far away (except of course for occasional token Black man whom one can impress friends with). Liberals care about minorities in the same way that Roman Patricians cared about Plebs... good as long as they do exactly what one says, fight in the military, and stay away from their neighborhoods.
In response to:

The High Cost of Liberalism

Marek3 Wrote: Apr 22, 2014 11:48 AM
I have to disagree with Dr. Sowell here. I would never want to live in Liberal Utopia; where everybody is a faceless Ant. Even at its most rosy, when Liberal vision is examined it still looks like a nightmare!
Shouldn't her book be called "Failed Choices"?
In response to:

Sex and Race Equality

Marek3 Wrote: Apr 02, 2014 12:49 PM
So basically you completely missed the point of Dr. Williams post but are yet spewing completely emotional and indignant response? The point (since you apparently missed it, unless of course you are having fun in which case I apologize) is that one can't argue discrimination purely based on percentages. Discrimination, as defined by liberals, is a purely fictional construct that has no place in any thinking person mind. We are all different culturally and physically, and due to that we can expect different results. In addition Man and Women ARE different. There should not be some silly attempts to make us equal, we aren't. Over 80% of teachers in K-4 are Women, is that something that we should make a Law about? Or simply acknowledge the reality that few Man could do those jobs without going postal? There should be NO Women in combat, only a Liberal would think that hurting our fighting capabilities is a good thing. Man are stronger, faster and more aggressive, well D'OH! Perhaps this is one reason why over 96% of prisoners are Male? BTW Women aren't being discriminated in employment that fallacy has been rebuked on so many occasion that only a fool can continue using those as an example.
On what food?
In response to:

Republicans and Blacks

Marek3 Wrote: Mar 25, 2014 2:52 PM
Ahh yes a typical Liberal argument. Because a person is Harvard educated and Black, therefore HE MUST be right. Without any thought into the simple fact that education in and of itself (and BTW what kind of education obama got is debatable since we are not allow to see it) doesn't mean you are right. It simply means you listened in some class. What YOU SAY, what YOU DO, matters. We don't care what you look like, where you come from, none of that. What we do care about is what type of a person you are and what you are doing. Unlike a Liberal who refuses to get passed skin color, we do.
In response to:

Back in the USSR?

Marek3 Wrote: Mar 24, 2014 9:59 PM
Yikes.. "Where kings were NOT absolute" darn monday.
In response to:

Back in the USSR?

Marek3 Wrote: Mar 24, 2014 8:47 PM
I disagree, while Religious freedom is indeed fundamental and a good indication of where Government ultimately will end up; it is not a first necessity. What is? Culture. A culture which doesn't understand Democracy will not have it. It isn't coincidence that America started over 1000 years ago with Saxon/Angles which had a culture where kings were absolute and each member had a say; this evolved over a very long time into our Founding Fathers. We expect countries to just become Democratic, but how? How did people therein learn about self sufficiency, self governess, self reliance? Democracy isn't a beginning it is the end, an end of a very long process. BTW I used the word "Democracy" for consistency with the Author; but I would like to point out that Democracy is just Tyranny by another name. What we really mean when we say "Democracy" is a Republic with individual Freedom.
Previous 31 - 40 Next