9 6

The country cannot rely on states to legislate themselves when it come to Civil Rights. Just look at how the Southern states didn't address, in fact subverted, Civil Rights following the Civil War during Reconstruction. Jim Crow would still be the norm in the South if the Federal Govt. hadn't weighed in. It took the Federal Gov't to provide the leadership (even if LBJ was not keen on the idea) to pass the 1964 Voters Rights Act (Civil Rights Act). In fact they are actively attempting to turn back the clock on Georgia and Florida.

t1nick 8 June 28

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I agree. There are some things which the states could have addressed but never have. Centuries on, we still have civil rights issues, child marriage, child abuse under the guise of religion etc.. I cannot believe that if we leave Alabama to itself, for example, that it will ever sort these matters

I concur. I worked in the oil field in Louisiana and Texas in the 1980's. I saw overt racism first hand. I could work and sweat with a black coworker all day, but not go have a beer together after work. There was not any laws against it, but accepted practice, a line that nobody crossed. It may be better now, but rural LA and TX was both sad and scary. The cities may be better than the rural South.


IMO it is not a matter of reliance on the states. Our civil rights are enshrined in the US constitution and states can not legally circumvent the constitution. I’m not convinced that politicians at the national level are more benevolent than those at the state level and can be better relied upon.

It helps to a degree to make laws, but for real progress we need awareness—awareness of the inherent dignity, beauty and value of every person. Focusing on sectionalism will get us nowhere. For that matter, screaming at other people about their racism will not make them change.

It’s a personal thing. Lead by example. It’s not about Florida, Georgia or New Mexico.


Agree and disagree. Civil Rights per se were spoke to inthe Constitution, but not truly defined. At the time of the writing of the Constitution at the beginning of our Nation, Civil Rights were intended solely for white males who owned land (landed gentry). Blacks and Native Americans were not considered fully human and not deserving of full rights and participation. It was deemed that women were to "fair" and delicate to participate in politics. So yes Civil Rights were alluded too, but for only a few.

Secondly, if we do not continue to "scream" about racism as you put it, then it will continue unabated. We may not change some closed-minds, but we can affect ultimately affect legislation that protects the targets of racism ftom those close-minded individuals. So I say, "scream-on" until the racists are drowned out and their efforts to cause harm is elimenated.

@t1nick I agree with you.

And racism is NOT a personal thing. It's a systematic issue. It is larger than one individual. It is larger than a town, a city or a state. The awareness will not be achieved without a direct and systematic challenge to the racist worldview.

Unfortunately. you are correct. It is systemic and it is only through systemic actions, laws and regulations, can its impact be mimimalized. We can never wipe it out completely as there will always be small-minded individuals that need a hierarchy and a pecking order to feel better about themselves.

@t1nick Even if you are going to “scream on”, I think a person should address racism in his own neighborhood rather than off somewhere else, and address it in the present, not in a historical context.



I do all the time. Thats why I teach in a minority population andcrepresentbtheir interests whenever I can.

@t1nick Great. We need teachers like that.




The SCOTUS decision on gerrymandering, is the most disappointing and disheartening decision which it has made in my lifetime. I feel that it completely undermines the concept of participatory democracy. I am totally disgusted with this decision.

I concur on a visceral level with you. I listened to Justice Roberts justification, and from a purely legal stand point I understand what he getting at. But still, I do not like the outcome anymore than you do.


I worry that our country can't be trusted to legislate itself in ANY area. Democracy depends upon an educated and informed electorate--which sadly we do not have. Our elections are primarily popularity contests which are easily swayed by the media. Well guess what, the media are for sale--in most cases to the highest bidder. If you have extreme amounts of cash, for all practical purposes you can buy elections.

mischl Level 7 June 28, 2019

According to history, you cannot rely on democrats for civil rights. It is still true to this day.

Welcome back from your echo chamber. Yes Democrats talked a good line, but ultimately failed to produce. So much better than the Conservatives though. Didn't watch the video as I know your biases already and your version of extremism. I am aware of the Democrats failings.

@t1nick correct Democrats talked a line and didn't produce. Slavery and segregation was ended by republicans, despite fierce fight by democrats. Civil rights happened because of republicans. What have democrats done FOR civil rights?


Not todays Republicans. Thevparties have revetsed roles so your anolgy like most of your arguments are moot.

@t1nick rhetoric is not a good response. You didn't answer the question. This is why you didn't watch the video. Nor did you answer the question. You have no basis in history, reality , or logic. You only have what you think. And without the previous 3 things mentioned you are running on emotion.

@Veteran229 hahahaha. You and I have been through it before. I don't want to waste my energy on another fruitless argument with you. Welcome back.



You are correct about greater votes from Republicans, but what you didn't take into accout was the role of the Southern Dixiecrats. Dixiecrats were Democrats in name only. In reality Souhern Dixicrats were closeted Republicans, just holding onto the Deocratic moniker as from when the parties were reversed (time of Lincoln).

So including the Dixiecrats in the Democratic vote is misleading and ultimately false. Dixiecrats became Republicans officially after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

@t1nick I don't know a single Republican that want's to revert back to having slaves, or some separatist style of society... The only ones that changed their tune WAS the Democrats. The Dixiecrats came about during the 1948 election as a breakaway party promoting segregation. You want to try and say they became Republicans but they (the Republicans) were leading the Civil Rights movement, not the Democrats. Hell, the Republican Candidate Thomas Dewey who, as Governor of NY, kept his promise by setting in place reforms, including the first statewide civil rights legislation in the nation. But the Dems tried to then say Republicans were the Racists as a way to distract the uneducated away from the facts of their past... Perhaps one of the most worn out examples of Projectionism ever.. Keeping in mind that Republicans were the party that fought against slavery and for civil rights, saying 'Dixiecrats' became Republicans doesn't mean Republicans became Racists wanting to bring back slavery or promote a Jim Crow view of life... That is a ridiculously false narrative to begin with. You saying the Dixiecrats were 'closeted Republicans, just holding onto the Deocratic moniker as from when the parties were reversed (time of Lincoln)" is just laughable... (and I'm not even talking about your spelling and grammar).. You actually think the parties reversed during the "time of Lincoln"??? 😆 Man... that's a good one.. 😂 PLEASE.. I BEG YOU.. explain what the hell you mean by that...


Dixiecrats where holding back the Democratic votes. They skewed the vote percentage so that it appeared lower, when they were only Democrats in tagline only.

@t1nick 😂😂😄😄😆😆😁😁🤣🤣😎👍 Yeah... okay.. You truly are clueless.. parties reversed during time of Lincoln... you're killing me man... 🤣🤣😆👌


never said that. Todays Republican party is not the same party as time of Lincoln. The platforms of the two partirs have switched completely SINCE the time of Lincoln not at the time of Lincoln. So you are offereing a false comparison. No surprise there.

@t1nick Then you need to learn to write a coherent sentence that says what you actually want it to say.. I quoted you twice saying just that.. " In reality Souhern Dixicrats were closeted Republicans, just holding onto the Deocratic moniker as from when the parties were reversed (time of Lincoln)." copied and pasted directly from you.. It doesn't say SINCE the time of Lincoln... Not a false comparison at all, you're trying to change your own wording after the fact... No surprise there..

Thanks for the edit updates. Its sometimes hard to catch them all from my phone screen. Im forever in your debt.

@t1nick If we ever meet, buy me a cup of coffee and we'll call it even..
PS: Just so you know, Conservative Republicans are not by definition Racist. We (Republicans) would REALLY love it if Democrats would learn, and accept that... 😒😀👍

Dont know if I agree and lets make it beer and your on. Lol

@t1nick I wouldn't want to even have a beer (and I love a good beer) with someone that thought I was a Racist just because I was a Conservative.. That's really closed minded, and, quite frankly, an emotionally retarded thing to even suggest... and I don't find it even remotely funny..

Understand. I was being facesious. But whatever dude.


Your site has a lot of useful information for myself. I visit regularly. Hope to have more quality items.


Interesting you compare today to the time just after the Civil War... and then want to invoke a J. Crow reference, as if the country is more racist now than it was then.. Do you think our country is more racist now?

We only addressed the most overt racism (Jim Crow) in 1964. The instutional racism that permeates society today was not addressed. We did little to ameliorate racism, just forced it to take a more overt face.

It is the 21st Century, the world, through satellite connections, has become smaller, yet our (The American) vision has grown smaller and mean spirited. So yes. It is much worse today.

@t1nick Once again, you avoid answering the question... Typical..


what question did I miss?


I answered it three posts up?


Like usual, you want a simplistic answer to a complex question. Do you always work at that level?

@t1nick While we're at it... What do you suppose Federal, or State for that matter, Gov. do that hasn't been done?


First off, lets begin with racial profiling and a different justice system for minorities and the poor, from the rest of society. Take the weapons of war that Bush dumped into domestic society away from the police and make de-escalation and mediation a emphasis. Thats not to say disarm, but to elimenate military weapons that have no business in a domestic setting away and change the mindset. Remove the temptation to shoot first, ask questions later.

Why can a white male mass murderer be taken alive, and a black man with a phone or a burned out tail light have to get shot (even if they comply). The paradigm from which cops operate need to be changed. Serve and protect, not seve and protect if you're white.

@t1nick First off, let's begin with reality. When a robbery call goes out to the ones on duty, and to look out for a young late 20s black, or Hispanic male, 5-8 wearing jeans and a grey hoodie, guess what... Every young black or Hispanic male in a grey hoodie in the area is going to get stopped, searched and questioned.. That's not profiling, that's the Cops doing their job..

Weapons of war?? You said " Take the weapons of war that Bush dumped into domestic society away from the police and make de-escalation and mediation a emphasis. Thats not to say disarm, but to elimenate military weapons that have no business in a domestic setting away and change the mindset. Remove the temptation to shoot first, ask questions later." What does that even mean?? Just start with that first sentence please... I don't understand it at all. Do you mean allowing "Assault Weapons" to be sold to the public? "elimenate military weapons that have no business in a domestic setting" ... so tell everyone that owns an AR-15 style rifle to turn it it? Ban them?

Your perception of the real world, day to day life from city to city, State to State, etc... with regards to who's getting shot by whom, and why,,, is a bit askew.



Tracking Military Weaponry and War Machines Flowing to America's Local Police Departments
Adam Andrzejewski

1033 program

You are incorrect on the majority of your points. It is profiling.

The dumping of surplus military equipment changed the paradigm regarding how the police view the community they are supposed to "serve and protect". The militrization of local police turned their community from something to work with, to a view of them as combatants.

@t1nick That's a crock of shit.. the most commonly requested items include ammunition, cold weather clothing, sand bags, medical supplies, sleeping bags, flashlights and electrical wiring. Small arms and vehicles such as aircraft, watercraft and armored vehicles have also been obtained. The aircraft are not weaponized, nor the vehicles. They're only troop transport vehicles. They may decide to put water cannons on the trucks, but that's about it.. The 'bayonets and 50 cal. weapons' is ridiculous.. Pfffft... bayonets indeed... Bwaaaahahaha...


Race as an Institutional Factor in the Arrest, and the use of Excessive and Deadly Force against African American Males
Larry D Stokes, Zaphon R Wilson, Kenneth A Jordan, Davida M Harris
Endarch: Journal of Black Political Research 2017 (1), 3, 2017


Once again a conservative who scoffs in the face of facts

@t1nick And for the record, I'll believe a black Police Chief over you concerning profiling any day.


you have a real hard time with recognizing context and credibility of source material. I guess two years of college wasnt enough.

@t1nick Ahh.. more projecting... good job.. 😣


What do you think the federal government should do where civil rights are concerned?

In what way are states failing to uphold civil rights?

The post was meant to be about the fact that there are areas of legislation that necessarily needs to be addressed at the Federral level and not left up to the states


All laws are. My ex was an environmental scientist and would complain about infractions she witnessed as we were driving. Like you, I said its only a law if enforced.


But right now, we can't rely on this Court to do it either. Or this Senate. Especially not this president.

And the GOP as it stands today.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:366743
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.