quote:


Do you think the above examples should be considered acceptable under the banner of "no restriction of thoughts and feelings"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: starshineowned

quote:

If the black community were adamant they believe it causes harm would you still support the rights of people to label members of the black community "niggers".

Yes..because there are ways to deal with this already as I said. It is called "suing". That process where a individual or group of individuals feel they have been wronged, and take a person "offender in their eyes" to court.

So, in a nutshell, you're saying a member of the black community has to go through the hassle of suing someone (money, time, effort) because some idiot doesn't have the brain to deal with people in a respectful manner and because you believe the idiot has the right to be idiotic.

Where are the rights you talk of for the black community? Why should they have to go through the hassle of court because of the actions of others? Who gives you the right to say where and when the government should interfere to protect the rights of the black community and other ethnic minorities? You're not black so what do you know about the damage done?

I'm a firm believer in look at the policy, look at its intention and then make a decision. The policy is intended to protect the rights of the black community not to be abused by idiots - forget suing - why should they have to go anywhere near a court just to get some respect?

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

This argument can be applied to any derogatory word used to describe any particular group or community.

On edit:  We cant go around fining everyone who offends someone with a word.  Where would the line be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Do you think blacks are the only one discriminated against?

Do you think i have not been the target of racial slurs from blacks?

Racism directed at the black community is underpinned by an entirely unique context which serves to reinforce centuries of second class status. Consequently, this a unique form of racial discrimination as per my previous post.

The point is here NG, if its not worth it to take it to court then what "real" damage has been done?  i mean if some drunk driver runs over your kid and he is paralysed that is "real" damage and you would not hesitate to take them to court.

There is real damage being done. Such racism is reinforcing the barriers in society that have existed for hundreds of years and maintaining an unnecessary amount of division. Plus, who are you to make the judgement that this piece of legislation is not harmful to a member of the black community? I don't think you're in a position to make that judgement and thus claim the proposed legislation is unnecessary.

Again i think the point is we do have a remedy for this and though you may not agree with it or it may on the surface seem inconvenient to you that does not mean there is no remedy for it.  There is, several have said it yyou sue them and if you in fact have a case you will be awarded damages.

I take the point that a person can sue. However, going through the courts is major inconvenience and I'll be surprised if many members of the black community do actually go through the courts when subjected to racism - thus making this option redundant. As said, the historical context is unique and an exceptional piece of legislation will not be out of place here.

The point being here that is why we are in the shit mess we are in with the corporations taking over our government.  That is why bush said i can do what i want i am the president.  blatant disregard for the constitution.

In terms of any government, if they don't act in our interests then it is the fault of society who vote them in and stand by and watch. You're not in the mess because bush said "I'm the president" - it's because (as a people) you've elected them and watched them go about their business. If your society genuinely wanted a government intent on protecting civil liberties then you would elect such a government. There's no point blaming a piece of legislation intended to protect the black community from racism when the issue is one of much deeper social and cultural failings.

Thats what it comes down to man.  you have to think in terms of "real" damages here, rather than mommy mommy jimmy is calling me names.

You can call it that. I call it a question of respect and building a society that breaks down barriers rather than reinforces them. On the otherside of the coin to your point above, the child in this scenario is the racist who can't act with respect like most other adults - act like children and expect to be talked down to like children.

It seems to me that you do not like the remedy because it is an inconvenience but that in no way should negate the constitutional princples as a matter of convenience

I don't know anything about your constitution so you'll have to explain the relevance here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Yes, there is no anti-government and pro-government distinction on these threads - the difference of opinion surrounds which issues/laws we consider to be justified government intrusion in our lives. 

Thats not true in our case.  i have pondered the constitutuion often and the amount of forethought that went into it is remarkable.   Its very well thought out so we not only have guidlines but we have a contract with the government as to exactly where those lines are.  Anything beyond is settled in a court room as i said earlier on a case by case basis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Real0ne, I'm not getting your constitution point because I've never read it. Also, what "is not true"? In another post you accepted that the government has a role to play in society - for example, law.

Let me give you another example.   Lets say green people ok,  Now we are living with matians among our community.

Taking your point to its logical conclusion i could say that just the sight of a green person causes the r1 community traumatic irreparable damage, therefore do we pass a law that green people are not allowe out of their houses when a r1 community member is about? 

then what if the r1 community members wants to travel around, do we next say that they have to watch for any r1 community member and quick run in thier house or they will be fined?

i mean you see it gets utterly rediculous when taken to its logical conclusion.

Not at all. See my post about the historical context of lynchings and slavery - this is a unique case.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Real0ne)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Something i want to add that i think is worth mentioning.

i am not sure about the intricacies of your parlimentary system is it?  but in a republic, being a country entirely bound by laws with sovereign states and untill the SSn sovereign citizens and having this contract with the government, operating in its designed manner, in other words not with a dictator like bush, that offers us the ability to discern precisely when our government has gone to far. 

The problem is with other governments there is no line and with no line things like the nigga issue can be carried "legally" to the extreme as i illustrated earlier.  In a republic, again operating in its normal capacity that can never happen.  t least not legally you see...  Thats why you hear me rant and rave about our constitutional rights all the time because right now we have a dictatorial government by any other definition and many of our rights have been subverted or just plain destroyed.  Possibly irreparably.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Real0ne, I'm not getting your constitution point because I've never read it. Also, what "is not true"? In another post you accepted that the government has a role to play in society - for example, law.

Not at all. See my post about the historical context of lynchings and slavery - this is a unique case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

We all have a view on precisely when the government goes too far. The US is not unique in this regard. We're talking about the principles of the posters on this thread. Posters' values. Also, there are people all around the world who fight for their rights to live in a democratic society and cling onto their civil liberties.

From an outsider looking in, your problem is not a barely known piece of proposed legislation that is intended to break down society's barriers. Nor is the problem one of a dictatorial government. For my money, blaming the government is the get out of jail free card. As a people you elected bush and the neo-cons, as a people you've watched them slowly erode your civil liberties. If it was me, I'd be far more worried about a society that has stood by and watched all of this than I would about barely known legislation. Personal responsibility is an oft-cited phrase on these boards - a large slice of this is in order for electing these people into a position of power - there's no point watching them go about their business and then suddenly claim legislation (intended to protect an ethnic group) is going to erode civil liberties long after the horse has bolted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Now i am not sure if i have the quoting right here but maybe i do not understand your point on the slavery issue? 

I've explained it in my post to Marie - post 64, longest paragraph.

I do not know of any other way to put it NG.  The constitution is the agreement of contract between the people and the governing body.  It specifically limits by law what the government can and can not impose on us and likewise what we the people expect from our government as well as what our government can expect from us. Its an excellent peice of work frankly.

We all have expectations from our governments. We all aspire to having our civil liberties and democracy protected.
 
I take your word for the depth and breadth of the US constitution. We're applying different underlying perspectives to this. I'm saying legislation should be dictated by modern social requirements i.e. legislation should keep pace with society. You seem to be saying that a constitution written (1700s?) dictates the practicalties of government legislation today.
 
No view is the wrong term.

Its not view, its legal, defined, nothing to do with some frivilous opinion or view.  You cant judge our constitution based on the majority of the posters here because they simply do not know anything about it.  (believe it or not).

I'm not judging your constitution. I'm not having a conversation with your constitution. You seem to be saying that no American can give an opinion on legislation unless they accept that it must be driven by the constitution? I'm looking for an independent, individual perspective rather than that dictated by a group of people a few hundred years ago. IMO, this is a matter of principle and concept.

Our elections are being bought. Not every one but key elections. That is the problem. We do not necesarily elect these people.  Its not always obvious but the bush and clinton ones were so blatantly obvious its rediculous.  

Most of the presidents have all been shirt tail relationship to the astor family.  The presidents who took bullets were either nonmason or went up against them.  So where does that leave us as a country?  

The first thing we need to do as a country is to have numbered receipts and copies of our votes for a recount.   that and random citizens to do the counting. Slight changes to what we have now.

I wouldn't disagree with any of the above but but in order to achieve change you need to develop a willing society.

What you are asking for is politeness laws. now i thought i made a clear example of how feelings can get absurd, i feel hurt because blah blah.  Its a black hole and will suck everything up around it.  Maybe there is no way to help you understand this concept of how our constitution is framed.

See my first sentence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 
I've explained it in my post to Marie - post 64, longest paragraph.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent  We all have expectations from our governments. We all aspire to having our civil liberties and democracy protected.
 
I take your word for the depth and breadth of the US constitution. We're applying different underlying perspectives to this. I'm saying legislation should be dictated by modern social requirements i.e. legislation should keep pace with society. You seem to be saying that a constitution written (1700s?) dictates the practicalties of government legislation today.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent  I'm not judging your constitution. I'm not having a conversation with your constitution. You seem to be saying that no American can give an opinion on legislation unless they accept that it must be driven by the constitution? I'm looking for an independent, individual perspective rather than that dictated by a group of people a few hundred years ago. IMO, this is a matter of principle and concept.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent  I wouldn't disagree with any of the above but but in order to achieve change you need to develop a willing society.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

we expect the government to follow the law and serve the agreed and intended purpose period.  nothing more nothing less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

we expect the government to follow the law and serve the agreed and intended purpose period.  nothing more nothing less.

Sounds reasonable. Same here (law or manifesto statements of intent).

I think we do agree in one fundamental area i.e. the government of a nation is the servant of the people and has a responsibility to act in the interests of the people. Our disagreement surrounds what constitutes the interests of the people.

Real0ne, we've had a good crack at it. We disagree in certain areas - no problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

NG, as you correctly pointed out earlier it boils down to lines.

Yes, there is no anti-government and pro-government distinction on these threads - the difference of opinion surrounds which issues/laws we consider to be justified government intrusion in our lives.

If the proposed law is passed, how long before another interest group demands the same,

I accept this point. It opens up the potential for further measures.
 
You have to consider whether or not racism aimed at the black community, in the context of slavery and lynchings, has a greater impact than calling me bald i.e. is this a unique case which deserves unique support.

The line I was reffering to was the line that defines which minorty becomes the last to deserve this special consideration. Once any one group recieves special consideration, it is only logical to redraw the line extend it to other groups, otherwise it IS discrimination, albeit of the positive variety.

Unfortunately this comes across as "blacks deserve this because we were mean to them in the past, no other group does" I guess that means some folks from northern mill towns (who were mainly white) deserve exactly the same considerations. After all they lived in company housing, were paid in company scrip, that could only be spent in company shops, is that not barely half a step removed from slavery in all bar name? Lets assume that slavery is accepted as a valid reason for this legislation, how about out & out genocide? After all many races can claim that as a justification for demanding such special considerations.

Placing a curve in the line for one group is wrong and unfair to all other groups, no matter their size

_____________________________

Opinion is packaged by weight not volume, contents may settle during transit. Consult you medical practitioner. Do not attempt to stop moving parts by hand. Ensure all safety shields in place. Open this way up. Do not expose to temperatures exceeding 50C

(in reply to NorthernGent)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

The IRS Has Been Losing High Profile Jury Trials
Since August, 2003, the government has failed to prove its claims in income tax-related cases to at least three juries. These recent acquittals support claims that government has no authority to tax wages as income and no “law” compels employers to withhold a portion of employees’ wages.
http://www.truthintaxation.us/?tax_inform=losingTrials
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr13.htm


Though the tax refusers in both cases were subsequently convicted and are currently in jail......

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

You know I did misread the Article.  Only one of the three is in jail.  Your website does misrepresent what occured in the Kuglin case however, and her lawyer says she will have to pay her taxes, though the criminal charges for not filing were not up held  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94630,00.html (its an interview with her and her lawyer). 
But hey I was wrong in my first reading and can admit it.