Discrimination endorsed

LDB · Jul 9, 2011

If you are a liberal appointee fecal lump you don't care about anything but legislating from the bench. Put two fecal lumps on a 3 member panel and discrimination wins when it should lose.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/a_horrible_racial_preference_ruling_in_michigan.html

Poorboy · Jul 9, 2011

Fecal Lump? Now that's funny right there!

greg334 · Jul 9, 2011

Whether or not it has to do with discrimination is not a real issue here, it is whether or not the state has a right to govern themselves as the citizens see fit.

Like the Californian ruling that also overturned a referendum on the state ballot (more precisely a state constitutional amendment), we are seeing an assault on our rights by both liberal and conservative, both democrat and republican to force us as citizens to have less to say on what goes on in our state. THIS is the problem with the 17th amendment and the need to repeal the amendment should be on the republican's list of things to do but it seems both conservative and liberal republicans side with the dems on this one and won't even entertain the idea.

Turtle · Jul 10, 2011

The problem with this one, and may voter referendums that want to change existing law, is when the vote it set up and then results in a strict majority-rule result. We don't have strict democracy majority rule in this country, never have. If we did, we could have the majority (whites) voting to have <insert your favorite race ju jour) packed up and shipped out forthwith. Literally, that could happen.

As for the 17th Amendment, it probably sounded like a good idea at the time, and I guess it sounded good for the nearly 100 that people campaigned to get the amendment inserted into the Constitution. It was created to correct some nagging procedural problems with the election of Senators, but all it's really done is change the balance of power from that of the States and the Federal Government being partners to what we have now - a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, has resulted over time in expanding federal control in every area.

From the time the notion of direct election of Senators was first proposed to the Amendment itself, it was like 80 or 90 years. The idea of repealing it began in earnest less than 10 years ago, and it'll probably take at least another 80 or 90 years for that to happen if ever. It's unlikely that directly elected Senators would back any other method, especially since the reasons stated for repealing it (Senators of being hostage to special interests) are largely the same ones that were used to get rid of legislature-elected Senators in the first place. I wouldn't hold my breath, that's for sure.

Tennesseahawk · Jul 10, 2011

One solution to getting rid of our fed gubmint being run by corporate entities, is to deny corporate entities the ability to proclaim freedom of speech. I don't see how any FICTIONAL entity could have rights. Afterall, it is a fiction. Non-corporeal. Corporations don't vote, so they shouldn't give money. If it's not enough for their board of directors, stockholders, and employees to vote for the company's best interest, with their wallets, that's too bad. The citizens should and MUST have the overwhelming say in who is elected, no matter how many Obamas we get. It should not be the one who is best at kissing corporate arse, that gets into the WH or Congress... or our courts.

jimby82 · Jul 10, 2011

If we could ever get this in place (only individual citizens can give money to candidates, and limit the amount to a set figure), most of our political problems would be solved. I just don't see it happening, and that is truly a tragedy for America.

Tennesseahawk said:
One solution to getting rid of our fed gubmint being run by corporate entities, is to deny corporate entities the ability to proclaim freedom of speech. I don't see how any FICTIONAL entity could have rights. Afterall, it is a fiction. Non-corporeal. Corporations don't vote, so they shouldn't give money. If it's not enough for their board of directors, stockholders, and employees to vote for the company's best interest, with their wallets, that's too bad. The citizens should and MUST have the overwhelming say in who is elected, no matter how many Obamas we get. It should not be the one who is best at kissing corporate arse, that gets into the WH or Congress... or our courts.

Tennesseahawk · Jul 10, 2011

This was a good article, but GREAT responses from the readers. Many hit home, but I think this one hit the nail, with regards to affirmative action:

"Whites, especially men, have been the objects of psychological warfare waged against them by Marxists for at least 50 years now. They have been browbeaten into submission with the rods of "slavery" and "racism". As such they suffer from beaten spouse syndrome, never standing up for themselves or even their children. They have been robbed of their wealth through wealth redistribution programs, including AA. Essentially, all this adds us to a tax on whites to fund the procreation of minorities here and abroad. What's more, white-to-white marriage is being discouraged by the government through AA (ex. If I have a multi-racial baby, think how many advantages he/she will have as compared to a white one). Folks, I know this is hard to stomach, but it's the bare bones truth, all bs aside. Tell me though, how long do you thing we have to make a change?"

greg334 · Jul 10, 2011

Turtle said:
The problem with this one, and may voter referendums that want to change existing law, is when the vote it set up and then results in a strict majority-rule result. We don't have strict democracy majority rule in this country, never have. If we did, we could have the majority (whites) voting to have <insert your favorite race ju jour) packed up and shipped out forthwith. Literally, that could happen.

Well I would agree with you but see the problem is that the law that was voted on by the state's citizens was to eliminate the discrimination the law caused when it was passed in the first place. The government and the state universities were bound by the law to fill unwritten quotas of race and not by merits of the individual.

However how one wants to 'warn' people about majority rule, it has been the opposite in this state and will continue to be.

Here is the amendment as it was presented to the people - "the proposed constitutional amendment would:

Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts. Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin."

We already have in our constitution that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. This takes it a step farther by eliminating the use of race out of the public end of things which is a good thing for all.