Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

Status
Not open for further replies.
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
same as i told you before in your thread.

Barry Goldwaters biggest mistake was not supporting civil rights. I would have voted yay on the civil rights act. my position always will be that ideally boycotts of racists is the way to go, insuring they go completely under instead of allowing them to remain in Buisness under new rules.

were I alive and in Congress at the time I would have a staunch record in opposition to any seperate but equal nonsense and been very vocal about it in true scalawag fashion.

this is where bunk gets his "don't think it's a good idea" from....ever read the full post?

hindsight is always 20/20 and so perhaps a better wording would have been that "I don't think it's the best idea".

either way, neither is an unequivocal "no".
Click to expand...
summary of what you said.
You would have been for the Civil Rights Act, but wanted a boycott also or instead ?
You are against separate but equal, so I'm assuming you are for integration ?
How are you on affirmative action ?
 
Last edited:
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
summary of what you said.
You would have been for the Civil Rights Act, but wanted a boycott also or instead ?
You are against separate but equal, so I'm assuming you are for integration ?
How are you on affirmative action ?
Click to expand...
What I read from that was that he supports the Civil Rights Act but opposed any measures that are "seperate but equal".

That's fairly reasonable, it leads to assume that he supports integration if he opposed segregation.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
What I read from that was that he supports the Civil Rights Act but opposed any measures that are "seperate but equal".

That's fairly reasonable, it leads to assume that he supports integration if he opposed segregation.
Click to expand...
I read it the same just was not understanding his statement using the word " ideally boycott " is the way to go. Should we not have had the Bill and just kept boycotting until...??? Maybe it was just the way I was reading it. but WTF.
I'm curious to hear his take on Affirmative Action .
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
summary of what you said.
You would have been for the Civil Rights Act, but wanted a boycott also or instead ?
You are against separate but equal, so I'm assuming you are for integration ?
How are you on affirmative action ?
Click to expand...
the whole seperate but equal thing in the states should have been ruled unconstitutional at the federal level under the federal constitution the very moment someone tried it.

the right of association is reserved for The People and expressly implied in the right to travel imvho.

so at a restaurant if you make me sit on one side with "my kind" or whatever then I would consider that a restriction on my right of association since we are all equally allowed access to the establishment and your right to association with me ended at the cash register. I would probably flip some tables over and ask how many of them it was going to take to lay hands on me first if they told me where to sit.

i grew up "integrated" but I could never tell. looking back now it was odd being bussed across town for school when there was one right down the street from my neighborhood that was about half and half black and white.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

"National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), arising out of what is sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair, is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Related court decisions are captioned Collin v. Smith and Smith v. Collin. Although summarily decided on procedural grounds, the necessary implication of the Supreme Court's 1977 NSPA decision — not directly stated in the unsigned, 5-4 per curiam opinion itself — is that a group's request to engage in a parade or demonstration involving public display of the Nazi swastika is a symbolic form of free speech that is at least presumptively entitled to First Amendment protections. In other words, the Court's decision implies that First Amendment protection would not be denied to use of the swastika as a form of "fighting words". Three of the four dissenters stated their agreement with the majority's position that First Amendment protections were applicable to the NSPA's challenge to the Illinois injunction. (Only Justice White did not join that statement.) By invalidating the state courts' injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march."
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Totality an hour ago. Spectacular. Just got back from a viewing party. Everything it was said to be. Had some funky glasses on while sun was still visible then could take them off very briefly during the total eclipse to see the corona. Darkish twilight and cool temperatures.
Click to expand...
Awe inspiring, to say the least. The heavens move in strange ways...

Did you spot Mercury?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
the whole seperate but equal thing in the states should have been ruled unconstitutional at the federal level under the federal constitution the very moment someone tried it.

the right of association is reserved for The People and expressly implied in the right to travel imvho.

so at a restaurant if you make me sit on one side with "my kind" or whatever then I would consider that a restriction on my right of association since we are all equally allowed access to the establishment and your right to association with me ended at the cash register. I would probably flip some tables over and ask how many of them it was going to take to lay hands on me first if they told me where to sit.

i grew up "integrated" but I could never tell. looking back now it was odd being bussed across town for school when there was one right down the street from my neighborhood that was about half and half black and white.
Click to expand...
ok thanks for the reply.
What about Affirmative Action.
So far we can agree
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Awe inspiring, to say the least. The heavens move in strange ways...

Did you spot Mercury?
Click to expand...
I was chicken and only looked briefly a couple of times during totality and so, I didn't see Mercury. The most surprising was a shimmer that was most evident on white surfaces just before and just after totality. It's a real thing but I hadn't heard of it before and it came as one of the surprises that are forever locked into memory.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

"National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), arising out of what is sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair, is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Related court decisions are captioned Collin v. Smith and Smith v. Collin. Although summarily decided on procedural grounds, the necessary implication of the Supreme Court's 1977 NSPA decision — not directly stated in the unsigned, 5-4 per curiam opinion itself — is that a group's request to engage in a parade or demonstration involving public display of the Nazi swastika is a symbolic form of free speech that is at least presumptively entitled to First Amendment protections. In other words, the Court's decision implies that First Amendment protection would not be denied to use of the swastika as a form of "fighting words". Three of the four dissenters stated their agreement with the majority's position that First Amendment protections were applicable to the NSPA's challenge to the Illinois injunction. (Only Justice White did not join that statement.) By invalidating the state courts' injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march."
Click to expand...
Socialists aren't like Nazis either.

If the SCOTUS says it, you agree with it I guess. Just like Citizen's United. Come to think of it, why don't you post up a summary of that decision when we complain about PAC money?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
If the SCOTUS says it, you agree with it I guess.
Click to expand...
That's your assumption

I agree with many things the Supreme Court decides and I disagree with many other things they decide

That case provides legal precedence to the exact situation you and others have said doesn't fall under the protections of free speech
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's your assumption

I agree with many things the Supreme Court decides and I disagree with many other things they decide

That case provides legal precedence to the exact situation you and others have said doesn't fall under the protections of free speech
Click to expand...
"Fighting words" are NOT protected as free speech.

That is anything said with the intention to injure or cause a breach of the peace.

Padawanbater2 said:
The first 3 minutes of that clip destroys the narrative that Sanders didn't resonate with minorities and women and that his policies wouldn't help them, their situation, or do anything about institutionalized racism
Click to expand...
Two people talking on a sofa...

Seriously?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's your assumption

I agree with many things the Supreme Court decides and I disagree with many other things they decide

That case provides legal precedence to the exact situation you and others have said doesn't fall under the protections of free speech
Click to expand...
I totally agree that the US government shouldn't interfere with the right to speak unless certain factors are present. For instance a known terrorist group would not and should not get that permit.

Was that car that struck those people just an accident do you think? Maybe he made a wrong turn and was fishing for the old french fry that was stuck in a seat cushion when he realized people were getting caught under his tires.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
"Fighting words" are NOT protected as free speech.

That is anything said with the intention to injure or cause a breach of the peace.
Click to expand...
"Although summarily decided on procedural grounds, the necessary implication of the Supreme Court's 1977 NSPA decision — not directly stated in the unsigned, 5-4 per curiam opinion itself — is that a group's request to engage in a parade or demonstration involving public display of the Nazi swastika is a symbolic form of free speech that is at least presumptively entitled to First Amendment protections. In other words, the Court's decision implies that First Amendment protection would not be denied to use of the swastika as a form of "fighting words".
Fogdog said:
I totally agree that the US government shouldn't interfere with the right to speak unless certain factors are present. For instance a known terrorist group would not and should not get that permit.
Click to expand...
"Known terrorist group" according to who? I'm sure there are many conservatives who would consider liberals/progressives "terrorists"? Wikileaks, Anonymous, even Occupy Wall Street could all be labeled as "terrorist groups". There are sitting politicians in our government who believe Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden deserve capital punishment. I'm not comfortable with a vague assessment from a government entity that labels a group of people "terrorists" being the basis for eliminating 1st amendment rights. So what are the factors?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Click to expand...
LOL

Sorry man, that was pretty much just the same garbage you put out. The woman in the video didn't even know that working class -- those making less than the median wage -- gave Clinton the majority of their vote.

The last election wasn't lost by Bernie because of economic issues. No matter how she spins it, Black Lives Matter isn't just about economic equality. Same goes with race-based hiring practices. Same goes with calling people faxxots and diminishing them. Same goes with people not feeling safe because they are black while driving through rural areas of the south after dark. Same goes with drug arrest rates. The list goes on and on.

Padawanbater2 said:
The first 3 minutes of that clip destroys the narrative that Sanders didn't resonate with minorities and women and that his policies wouldn't help them, their situation, or do anything about institutionalized racism
Click to expand...
My god man. Bernie lost because he lost big time with black, brown and women Democratic Party voters. There was nothing that demonstrates the narrative that Sanders didn't resonate with those voters better than this fact. The fact is, Bernie lost because he couldn't attract more than 20% of the African American vote during the primaries in the south.

I'm not saying Bernie is like you, I'm just saying Bernie didn't win the black and brown vote in 2016. He has time to work on his image with the whole base of Democratic Party for 2020. Maybe he'll convince the African American delegation of the party that he's best for them out of the field of candidates that run in 2020. I hope he does a better job the next time he goes for it.

Personally, I think what we saw in 2016 is what we will get in 2020. Good on certain economic issues but ham-handed when it comes to relating to the larger base of the Democratic Party and connecting with them. What I've seen from Unity Tour and his endorsement of Mello, his ability to bring people together is not just limited but moronic. While I'm skeptical, I'm willing to listen and change my mind.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"Although summarily decided on procedural grounds, the necessary implication of the Supreme Court's 1977 NSPA decision — not directly stated in the unsigned, 5-4 per curiam opinion itself — is that a group's request to engage in a parade or demonstration involving public display of the Nazi swastika is a symbolic form of free speech that is at least presumptively entitled to First Amendment protections. In other words, the Court's decision implies that First Amendment protection would not be denied to use of the swastika as a form of "fighting words".

"Known terrorist group" according to who? I'm sure there are many conservatives who would consider liberals/progressives "terrorists"? Wikileaks, Anonymous, even Occupy Wall Street could all be labeled as "terrorist groups". There are sitting politicians in our government who believe Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden deserve capital punishment. I'm not comfortable with a vague assessment from a government entity that labels a group of people "terrorists" being the basis for eliminating 1st amendment rights. So what are the factors?
Click to expand...
Wikileaks are terrorists? Dude, are you tripping again like were when you went off on pin. You showed yourself for who you are that evening.

Would you say the car that drove over people in Charlottesville was driven by a terrorist?
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
ok thanks for the reply.
What about Affirmative Action.
So far we can agree
Click to expand...
i can't say I have ever held a job where any one was there as a result of that so idk. iirc the black american GDP for example, were it a country; would place in the top 15 worldwide at around half a trillion. racism couldn't fuck that if it tried.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top