it happened about than 70 years ago. seriously.
you don't like history? so fucking sad.
The fact that you believe that the USA would round up blacks and murder them if they lived in cities away from whites is amusing considering that you believe our government should be given more and more power on its path to complete control and ability to do just the things you are against. Yet, on a topic you don't agree with any suggestion that the government might do such a thing is complete tin foil hat talk. The fact that you then are too stupid to understand my point wasn't that I disagree the government could do such a thing, but was about your hypocrisy gives me little hope for you.
really?
did blacks ever keep whites as slaves? did blacks ever impose jim crowe laws on whites? did whites ever have to fight for the privilege of riding on whatever seat of the bus they chose?
i fail to see how the 10% of blacks in the country could keep the other 90% down. especially since a disproportionate number of blacks are in jail right now for committing the same crimes as whites.
Racism and slavery are not the same thing. We would of had racism in the country even without slavery. People seem to think its alright to hate Mexicans and be racist towards them, did we have a large population of Mexican slaves?
The CRA is a restriction/oppression of individual rights on a majority of our country to give disproportionate protection to minorities. It basically means that given two individuals with very similar experience and ability, one being white male and one being minority, that the minority has special privileges in society that will give them an upper hand. This is government sponsored oppression and infringes on the rights of both businesses and the white male. Why do I use 'white male' instead of majority? Well, that is who you mean when you say 'majority', and who you mean the minorities need protected against, yes?
how is it racist? it applies equally to a black who commits a hate crime against a white as it does to a black who commits a hate crime against a white.
are you so dense you can not see this? or do you ignore it willfully?
a greater statute of limitations to sue on the basis of pay discrimination. instead of the clock starting to tick at the first discriminatory paycheck, it starts at the most recent discriminatory paycheck.
are you for more leverage for companies to discriminate based on gender and other things?
women are paid $0.80 on the dollar for what a man is paid. why is it pointless to give them tools to combat such unfair pay discrimination?
You think you need a law that protects anyone in a special manner over and above what the protection they already get from being murdered, raped, or beaten. My point is - why? Isn't rape, murder, and beating people already illegal? Does the victim feel less raped, murdered, or beaten if I do it because I like doing those things than they do if I did it because they are black, gay, lesbian, woman, chinese, ect ect? Murder is murder, rape is rape, beatings are beatings.
Starting the time period at the last check does not seem unreasonable, and while I am not a scholar on that particular bill, I believe it did some other things. You realize the entire 80 cents on the dollar thing is a median pay of any job held by a woman vs the median pay of any job held by a man. Any job over 35 hours. Men are more likely to work overtime, Women are more likely to take time off to care for sick children and family. Men are likely to have more tenure given the same job. Even government research, private compensation research, and womens groups agree that more like 2-5 cents on the dollar is probably a reasonable estimate of how much women lose by 'discrimination'. That being what cannot be explained by actual experience, tenure, and other things of that nature.
Oh great government, I prostrate myself to you. Please teach me things I could learn on my own if I gave a fuck and give me .20 more cents on the dollar. Without your complete control I shall never be equal, please, please, pleeassseee.
that racist asshole reminded them of the bigotry that still thrives in this country. do you really think that is what an interracial couple wants to hear when they go to get married?
of course, they could have just PAID MORE MONEY to obtain the same thing as any non-interracial couple would have obtained.
jesus fucking christ.
I agree that a judge treating people differently based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is wrong. The judge was wrong to use his political office in this way. Was he wrong to believe what he believes? Yes. However, it is his right to be an asshole, just not when representing the government. Our laws should not treat anyone differently - whether they be gay, married, have children or not, black, white, yellow, woman or man.
there is no difference.
newt was unequivocal, then vacillated.
you made a statement, i quoted it in context (that quote fits in context of what you said, and you have stood by it), but you say that my quoting it is somehow misleading.
but good job at insulting me in an attempt to discredit me.
I suppose my best response would be.
Context - the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because
you took it out of context.
You know for a fact that you took the comment out of context to make my views seem more extreme/racist/whatever than they were and did so intentionally to misrepresent my idea and statement. Thus, you took it out of context. Maybe you should look the meaning of words up before you use them, maroon.
some guy comes into my pharmacy with a severe gash.
i refuse to sell him gauze that would save his life because he is redhead.
i am not hurting the redhead, i am just not helping him.
fucking duh.
If a guy dies because he doesn't have gauze, then I would say evolution did a good job. Seriously? What possible situation would you die from not having gauze? Maybe if a guy holds a gun to your head and says 'give me gauze or Ill kill you.'
Try using nitrate pills as an example. You are having a heart attack at a pharmacy and they won't sell you nitrates. To that I might say "Why would you forget a pill that would keep you alive, don't you have a personal responsibility to take care of yourself and stay alive?" Also, most 'life saving' items would need a prescription. I will have to ask my pharmacist friend if the government allows him to give people nitrates without a prescription if they are dying.
Insulin would be a good example, but wouldn't people who know they need insulin to live keep some handy? If they don't care enough about their lives to ensure they have an adequate supply of insulin, then obviously there is a severe issue here.
Or perhaps CPR, mouth to mouth, or anything of that nature. Still, people have no responsibility to help you regardless.
Gauze is right up there in importance with tooth brushes. A wash cloth and tape can do the same thing as gauze.
Now, if you are asking if a hospital has the responsibility to treat you for emergency care. Then yes, I would say they do if they receive government funding. Privately, does a doctor have a legal responsibility to care for you if you beat on his door all bloody? How many doctors, legal responsibility or not, would actually leave you laying on the ground dying if they could save you?
