If you could repeal one piece of legislation... - VGF

Philip55 · 03-30-2005, 05:57 AM

What would you repeal?

Civil Rights Act of 1964 for me. It's by far the worst piece of legislation signed in recent memory, not to mentioned the most deceptively named.

Problem is (1) it is based on the misnomer that Congress can regulate anything that substantially impacts interstate commerce, and (2) it violates the civil rights of business executives and property owners.

Civil rights are things like the ability to own property, sue, vote, etc. Not the right to employment (unless this is a public entity, as in government-owned).

Jonathan Resop · 03-30-2005, 10:24 AM

I would repeal your face.

And you are an idiot. Unless you grew up in the 1960's, and really know what segregation and discrimination was all about, then you have no right to talk about the Civil Rights act. We're living in a racist country, and sometimes stupid people need a push. Preferably over a cliff, but this works too.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, though. Since I've already concluded that you are an imbecile. You have done nothing to prove to me otherwise.-jay

Philip55 · 03-30-2005, 11:29 AM

I wonder if you think childish ramblings bother me.

Anyone, since you weren't alive at the passing of the Civil Rights Act, you clearly have no right to talk about it.

This is a POLITICS forum. If the ****ing admin of this board can't engage in an intelligent discussion about libertarianism, then I'm sorry, but you can **** off.

[ March 30, 2005, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Philip55 ]

Evil Kirby · 03-30-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip55: I wonder if you think childish ramblings bother me.

This is a POLITICS forum. If the >****<ing admin of this board can't engage in an intelligent discussion about libertarianism, then I'm sorry, but you can >****< off.

Why was this funny.

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 03-30-2005, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip55:
Anyone, since you weren't alive at the passing of the Civil Rights Act, you clearly have no right to talk about it.

I'd believe this include you, unless you were born before 1964 and able to remember what happened. [img]redface.gif[/img]

Serial Miller · 03-30-2005, 09:18 PM

You might as well say "I hate blacks" while you're at it, Phil.

Philip55 · 03-30-2005, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina:
You might as well say "I hate blacks" while you're at it, Phil.

By that logic, Barry Goldwater hated blacks, as do black libertarians.

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 03-30-2005, 10:23 PM

....I think I get it.
If there's one problem with a law/act/amendment/whatever, Take the whole god damned thing down, despite how much good it's doing.

Philip55 · 03-30-2005, 10:50 PM

Where did you get that? For all you know, I could hate the whole thing.

Anyway, titles I, III, and IV are good, at least in theory/part (haven't read the specifics). Titles II and VII are bad. Haven't reviewed the rest.

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...w/civilr19.htm

It should really be called the Anti- Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I think the good provisions were largely superceded by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which I support).

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 03-30-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Where did you get that? For all you know, I could hate the whole thing.

Then why suggest repeal the whole thing?

Quote:

Anyway, titles I, III, and IV are good, at least in theory/part (haven't read the specifics). Titles II and VII are bad. Haven't reviewed the rest.

Well, glad you agree on SOME of it.

But as for not liking two, that basically saying "WE DON'T LIKE YOUR KIND 'ROUND HERE, ****** ."

And as for hating VII, that's too bad.

Somebody of a different race took your job in computer programming? Too bad.
Someone of the same race can take your job as well, so don't hold it against other ethnic races.

The Missing Link · 03-31-2005, 02:49 AM

Lord almighty, people. What the hell is going on? Did they put something in the water that made you guys loopy?

Be it known first that I think that the Civil Rights Act was a very good act to pass. However, I'm also not fond of the present implementation of it; needless to say, quotas weren't what the framers of the law originally intended.

Now, that disclaimer mentioned...

How the hell are we comparing not liking a certain law to not liking a certain class of people? Holy cow... that just took the cake. And even beyond that, I just love how we picked upon perhaps one of the most classic divisions that still seems to exist within America today... only serving--not to unify this divide but to drive the wedge deeper.

Stop wanking to your own words, guys.

Here's a lesson to you all: Decent people may disagree and still be decent people.

And for the love of all that is decent, stop treating this as some strict abomination of racism. Because you know what, the Civil Rights Act has a little more sway than, you know, race... like gender, religion, and later extended to sexual orientation.

With that said, there are serious flaws within the implementation of the law. Quota systems are not fair systems and promote an upside-down employment schema where lesser-qualified applications have to be hired over more qualified applications because you have to have x number of such and such group by law. There's no meritocracy involved but rather a reinforcement of the many -isms that we hope to get rid of over time. Be that as it may, the quota system has done well despite its shortcomings, but I do think it's time for a revision that makes things much more merit-based in order to promote competition.

That doesn't mean it should be repealed; it does need to be reexamined, IMHO.

[ March 31, 2005, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: The Missing Link ]

Serial Miller · 03-31-2005, 05:19 PM

I'm just saying that he makes himself look a racist by being blunt and not delivering direct explanation. There's something to be said for tact.

imported_ · 03-31-2005, 05:35 PM

The 10th Amendment.

Philip55 · 03-31-2005, 06:02 PM

No one follows that amendment anyway.

imported_ · 03-31-2005, 07:01 PM

Glad you agree. Next: the 2nd.

The Missing Link · 03-31-2005, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina:
I'm just saying that he makes himself look a racist by being blunt and not delivering direct explanation. There's something to be said for tact.

How about an sexist instead of a racist? Or any other -ist? Or even a moron? As I said before, there's more than race in the Civil Rights Act.

Sometimes I wonder who are bigger racists--those who hold biases against people of another race or those who claim racism the moment someone disagrees about something that "everyone in their right mind shouldn't disagree about".

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 03-31-2005, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tik:
Glad you agree. Next: the 2nd.

I agree, in some sense.

I think we should really crack down on guns and stop making them even more powerful than they are already.

Civillians (18 and older) should be only allowed to have common handguns and should have a 'stricter' backround check.

I'm not sure what the gun laws are now, but if they allow automatic weapons, it shouldn't.

Automatic and more-powerful-than-handguns guns should only be limited to Military and Police.

If anything, I think this was mainly for a hilarious "**** you" to England in...1789-91, I believe?
Same with Amendment 3 (Quartering of Troops.)

[ March 31, 2005, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Beam Yosho the Drunkard ]

***CaptHayfever*** · 03-31-2005, 10:23 PM

^Three was just to flip off England, yes, but Two was actually relevant.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

The Missing Link · 03-31-2005, 11:06 PM

How about we repeal the 21st Amendment?

*waits*

Serial Miller · 03-31-2005, 11:30 PM

So perhaps now I'm under fire for being aware of his flawed delivery, hmm? I'm really not arguing one way or another. I just felt like making statement that he's goading people who cry racism into argument with him.

[ March 31, 2005, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Deus Ex Machina ]

03-30-2005, 05:57 AM	#1
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,480.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,980.00 Donate	What would you repeal? Civil Rights Act of 1964 for me. It's by far the worst piece of legislation signed in recent memory, not to mentioned the most deceptively named. Problem is (1) it is based on the misnomer that Congress can regulate anything that substantially impacts interstate commerce, and (2) it violates the civil rights of business executives and property owners. Civil rights are things like the ability to own property, sue, vote, etc. Not the right to employment (unless this is a public entity, as in government-owned).

03-30-2005, 10:24 AM	#2
Jonathan Resop Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 33,299.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 33,799.00 Donate	I would repeal your face. And you are an idiot. Unless you grew up in the 1960's, and really know what segregation and discrimination was all about, then you have no right to talk about the Civil Rights act. We're living in a racist country, and sometimes stupid people need a push. Preferably over a cliff, but this works too. I'm not going to bother arguing with you, though. Since I've already concluded that you are an imbecile. You have done nothing to prove to me otherwise.-jay

03-30-2005, 11:29 AM	#3
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,480.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,980.00 Donate	I wonder if you think childish ramblings bother me. Anyone, since you weren't alive at the passing of the Civil Rights Act, you clearly have no right to talk about it. This is a POLITICS forum. If the **ing admin of this board can't engage in an intelligent discussion about libertarianism, then I'm sorry, but you can ** off. [ March 30, 2005, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Philip55 ]

03-30-2005, 09:18 PM	#6
Serial Miller Retro Nintendo Supermod Art & Literature Mod Metroid Mod Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 15,679 Thanks: 416 Thanked 1,046 Times in 585 Posts Points: 14,116.59 Bank: 1,556,398.07 Total Points: 1,570,514.65 Donate	You might as well say "I hate blacks" while you're at it, Phil.

03-30-2005, 10:23 PM	#8
Beam Yosho the Drunkard Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The oversized rock of Hawaii. Gender: Posts: 5,665 Thanks: 5 Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts Points: 22,021.39 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 22,521.39 Donate	....I think I get it. If there's one problem with a law/act/amendment/whatever, Take the whole god damned thing down, despite how much good it's doing.

03-30-2005, 10:50 PM	#9
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,480.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,980.00 Donate	Where did you get that? For all you know, I could hate the whole thing. Anyway, titles I, III, and IV are good, at least in theory/part (haven't read the specifics). Titles II and VII are bad. Haven't reviewed the rest. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/...w/civilr19.htm It should really be called the Anti- Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think the good provisions were largely superceded by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which I support).

03-31-2005, 02:49 AM	#11
The Missing Link Professional Lurker Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Hyrule, Washington, US Gender: Posts: 15,573 Thanks: 80 Thanked 183 Times in 110 Posts Points: 5,506.15 Bank: 51,115.11 Total Points: 56,621.26 Donate	Lord almighty, people. What the hell is going on? Did they put something in the water that made you guys loopy? Be it known first that I think that the Civil Rights Act was a very good act to pass. However, I'm also not fond of the present implementation of it; needless to say, quotas weren't what the framers of the law originally intended. Now, that disclaimer mentioned... How the hell are we comparing not liking a certain law to not liking a certain class of people? Holy cow... that just took the cake. And even beyond that, I just love how we picked upon perhaps one of the most classic divisions that still seems to exist within America today... only serving--not to unify this divide but to drive the wedge deeper. Stop wanking to your own words, guys. Here's a lesson to you all: Decent people may disagree and still be decent people. And for the love of all that is decent, stop treating this as some strict abomination of racism. Because you know what, the Civil Rights Act has a little more sway than, you know, race... like gender, religion, and later extended to sexual orientation. With that said, there are serious flaws within the implementation of the law. Quota systems are not fair systems and promote an upside-down employment schema where lesser-qualified applications have to be hired over more qualified applications because you have to have x number of such and such group by law. There's no meritocracy involved but rather a reinforcement of the many -isms that we hope to get rid of over time. Be that as it may, the quota system has done well despite its shortcomings, but I do think it's time for a revision that makes things much more merit-based in order to promote competition. That doesn't mean it should be repealed; it does need to be reexamined, IMHO. [ March 31, 2005, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: The Missing Link ]

03-31-2005, 05:19 PM	#12
Serial Miller Retro Nintendo Supermod Art & Literature Mod Metroid Mod Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 15,679 Thanks: 416 Thanked 1,046 Times in 585 Posts Points: 14,116.59 Bank: 1,556,398.07 Total Points: 1,570,514.65 Donate	I'm just saying that he makes himself look a racist by being blunt and not delivering direct explanation. There's something to be said for tact.

03-31-2005, 05:35 PM	#13
imported_ Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,161.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,661.00 Donate	The 10th Amendment.

03-31-2005, 06:02 PM	#14
Philip55 Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 142 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,480.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,980.00 Donate	No one follows that amendment anyway.

03-31-2005, 07:01 PM	#15
imported_ Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 4,161.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 4,661.00 Donate	Glad you agree. Next: the 2nd.

03-31-2005, 10:23 PM	#18
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,078 Thanks: 146 Thanked 694 Times in 447 Posts Points: 101,777.91 Bank: 772.99 Total Points: 102,550.90 Donate	^Three was just to flip off England, yes, but Two was actually relevant. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

03-31-2005, 11:06 PM	#19
The Missing Link Professional Lurker Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: New Hyrule, Washington, US Gender: Posts: 15,573 Thanks: 80 Thanked 183 Times in 110 Posts Points: 5,506.15 Bank: 51,115.11 Total Points: 56,621.26 Donate	How about we repeal the 21st Amendment? waits

03-31-2005, 11:30 PM	#20
Serial Miller Retro Nintendo Supermod Art & Literature Mod Metroid Mod Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 15,679 Thanks: 416 Thanked 1,046 Times in 585 Posts Points: 14,116.59 Bank: 1,556,398.07 Total Points: 1,570,514.65 Donate	So perhaps now I'm under fire for being aware of his flawed delivery, hmm? I'm really not arguing one way or another. I just felt like making statement that he's goading people who cry racism into argument with him. [ March 31, 2005, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Deus Ex Machina ]