Originally posted by PLATO
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Been to Walmart lately?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostThe idea that a law that was enacted to prevent institutional disenfranchisement of millions of Americans citizens is a 'racial entitlement' is so incredibly offensive that it almost beggars belief.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Thanks Monk. I have always wanted to go to a Walmart.Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..
Look, I just don't anymore, okay?
Comment
-
Originally posted by kentonio View PostWhy should a minority group need to be able to swing an entire district in order to expect representation? The reason laws like this are still necessary is because minorities are still seen as different and even when it's accepted that they need representation they are seen as needing separate representation. Politicians should always need to 'have to worry about protecting minorities', that should be a standard part of every politicians role. In a representative democracy the elected leaders are not supposed to only represent the people that voted for them.
Originally posted by The Mad Monk View PostThe Walmarts out here are big, and pretty open.
Comment
-
and live giant catfish, too!
Last edited by The Mad Monk; March 4, 2013, 01:17.No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat View PostIt was enacted for that, and I think in fairness to Scalia, his meaning was that the notion that this supervisory overreach that was clearly necessary at the time, should be maintained in perpetuity in some locations but not others, without a demonstrable factual basis. Scalia's judicial philosophy does not accept the notion that there should be open-ended blanket solutions imposed at the federal level for local issues that major or may not exist any more in those locations.
I don't normally defend Scalia, but I don't think his intent was out of line. The counter argument for maintaining the VRA approvals is that there were past patterns of racial abuse in those areas, so that's enough to justify on on-going oversight, even decades later, without real evidence of on-going abuse.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
you really need to turn the sound off on that U-tube clip...Any views I may express here are personal and certainly do not in any way reflect the views of my employer. Tis the rising of the moon..
Look, I just don't anymore, okay?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Berzerker View Postpoliticians dont have to worry much if their district lacks minorities, they can risk making them a target rather than a valued constituency
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View PostAgreed. I also think its blatantly unconstitutional to require the Southern states to submit their redistricting plans for approval while other states (some of them which may be even as racist as Southern states *cough*Illinois) don't have a worry a damn. Make it everyone or no one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Postand live giant catfish, too!
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View PostAgreed. I also think its blatantly unconstitutional to require the Southern states to submit their redistricting plans for approval while other states (some of them which may be even as racist as Southern states *cough*Illinois) don't have a worry a damn. Make it everyone or no one.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
Comment