shootinstudent
Wait a minute. We're having a discussion about whether or not we have more or less rights today than we did in the past, and you're saying that the injustices of the past have nothing to do with that??? How does that work?
Not quite. Look at the
thread topic - and how it had progressed to your first post commenting about mine. That is the discussion.
Although you have tried very hard to make it appear all "inclusive", you attempt to turn it into a comparison weighed solely on the discrimination exercized against
some negroes in
some parts of the country by some people - and some legislation to try and stop it - against the wave of rights and liberties violations conceived in the 1930s, amplified at the end of WW2 and
accelerated in many areas in the 1960s
against all of us.
And the answer is still no.
We all still have less liberty and rights at the present, and not even all of the "minorities" you imply to represent agree with you and disagree with me.
I listed those cases to provide a specific example of a rights violation against each of the groups I named in my previous post. If you have more questions about the specifics, the cases are easy to get ahold of and I can provide the reporter citations if you'd like.
You are trying to present something as
news to me that is not.
I think you have grown up in a political environment where your own rights are so thoroughly trampled you think it is "normal" - and that "real rights violations" limited to the specific types you listed are things of the past.
Alright, so I'll ask again: Name five rights that you do not currently possess, that you did in the past.
I could list a page full under the 4th Amendment alone. Read my last post to Handy.
Eminent domain is neither new, nor is it more pervasive now than it was in the past.
This is flat wrong. The application of eminent domain to force people out of their property
for the use of private corporations and businesses is both a perversion of eminent domain, and fairly new.
State governments were notorious, before the incorporation cases, for robbing people of land to pay off political cronies.
Yes, and we could get into how a combination of political and private corporate economic forces ran off, regulated or ran out of business most of our family farms.
If you think your current corporate-government alliance gives a dam about the Civil Rights Act, or your rights and liberties - whether you are white, black, brown, beige or scarlet - I have some
news for you; slavery didn't go away after 1865, nor discrimination after 1964 or even the late 60s. They simply took other forms. You are simply oblivious to them.
Who made this public statement - and why - in
1997?
"The United States government did something that was wrong ... deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens ... clearly racist."
Think that ended all
medical and biological testing on United States citizens, using people as guniea pigs without
fully-informed consent?
Your statements are very general. If you go on in that manner, I don't think this discussion will be fruitful .... etc
Ditto. The banking regulations have changed drastically over the years - I know people who have been IN banking in management positions. Most codified invasions of privacy by the Federal government via banks have not been in force before the late 1950s - and none of them if you include my parents lifetimes almost back to WW1. You are flat wrong again.
And you ignore all the 4th Amendment violations by corporate-government data collection. Are you really trying to say with a straight face that this is not the case?
If so, you are right: further discussing it with you is indeed worthless.
