Political philosophy and the understanding of the role of government is important though. That wasn't a partisan attack, it was a philosophical identification.
But clearly, you didn't read what I wrote if you're going to respond to it as though it was a partisan attack.
:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:
What Cal wrote in his 'non partisan attack'...
It's important to realize that it was progressive Democrats using the power of the federal government like Woodrow Wilson who segregated the military.
It was progressive Democrats using the power of the federal government who used the massive power of the federal government and propaganda to discriminate and persecute people of different heritages. And to justify physical assaults and violence perpetuated against those groups of people.
It was the progressive Democrats using the power of the federal government who embrace eugenics and supported abortions to reduce minority populations.
And it was progressive Democrats using the power of the federal government who used the power of the federal government to throw people who spoke against government policy into internment camps.
I would hate to see what a partisan attack by Cal would look like...
And also remember the right would like to associate anyone who is a Democrat or votes Democrat with any Democrat who has ever lived, and they must embrace every Democrat philosophy ever put forth by every Democrat....
I certainly don't think that Cal embraces every right wing nut case cause, just because the are both on the 'right' - I actually think he is capable of 'independent thought', too bad he doesn't afford the same courtesy...
And Lincolnx2, of course this is an issue that concerns left, right and everything in between, and it would be extremely difficult for the congress to repeal Title II.
I was thinking when Cal said that he would actually let this one slide - with an admonishment of 'don't do it again', that perhaps there is a 'scale' of rights? Are some more important than others? Do we allow the government to infringe a tiny bit on the right of personal property so we don't have race wars?
Perhaps - I would fight tooth and nail for the KKK to say whatever they want, whatever hate they want to spew (within the SCOTUS guidelines for free speech - the whole calling up a white hood army to kill blacks - nope, they can't go there). They must be allowed their freedom of speech, just as I hope they would fight for my right to say how disgusting they are. The first is as close to sacred as you can get. The second is as well. But, are there 'gray' areas?
Now I know the right only sees 'black and white' and certainly the argument of if you start to chip away at rights, where does it end - in a Leninist/Mao state - is valid. I wouldn't want any of the 1st or 2nd removed, but, we have expanded rights - allowing blacks and women the right to vote, and we have removed rights.
Natural rights are natural rights, inside of us, not 'given' to us. But, in the quest to create a series of laws, for a large and diverse society, are there times where rights are 'altered' as they were when we allowed slavery, or when women didn't have the right to vote? We have in the past circumvented rights - for society's sake, or as shag says 'the greater good'. I view Title II as that - to prevent something truly awful, a property right was removed. We can't live in a utopia, but we can't live in a country torn apart by race conflicts, or gender conflicts, just ask Lysistrata and the men of Greece...
Perhaps someday, the country will change enough that it would make sense to remove Title II, just as we eventually allowed women to vote.
