• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which party best supports civil rights?

Which party best supports civil rights?


  • Total voters
    46
Yeah, many of us were born into less than favorable situations, however those of us who were born white didn't suffer the years of discrimination as the black people did.

When were white people lynched other than those who were because the helped the black folks?

That was 42+ years ago. I'm curious when you think all African Americans should be expected to move on with their lives? I think a majority of them have, but those who continue to claim discrimination is rampant need to get their heads checked. AA has offered these "whistleblowers" more opportunities than they can imagine.

You know how I paid for college? Loans and a job. I'm not rich. My family is barely middle class. I got good grades in high school and was able to go on to get a college degree. And most high schools in the country offer the same curiculum as my HS did... some might have worse social situations, but that isn't much reason to not study your ass off to make something of yourself.

And even if you don't want to go to college, it is still possible to be middle or upper class. You have to have goals and ambition to reach those goals to not be stuck working at a crap, minimum wage paying job your entire life.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, many of us were born into less than favorable situations, however those of us who were born white didn't suffer the years of discrimination as the black people did.

When were white people lynched other than those who were because the helped the black folks?

Pete...lets be real and honest...OK? The climate for success has existed in most parts of this country since the 20's and in all of the country for at least 50 years. problem areas? Sure...but no more so than the Appalachean states and other areas for whites. The simple fact is people come to this country from Mexico with nothing and in the matter of a few generations they are business owners and their children are college graduates. People come here from Haiti, and virtually every other country in the world and bust their ass and succeed. The racism bull**** is nothing but a tired excuse. There are plenty that exploit those people...Like Jessie Jackson said when he put away the suits and got into the community..."it aint about Bull Connor no more...its about US and we are killing each other...its called genocide"

EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has dealt with slavery and racism. oh...I know...thats an ugly fact, but a fact nonetheless. Blacks held slaves. Africans HOLD slaves. Europeans held slaves. Indians held slaves. MOST have progressed. We DONT and the reason we dont is because people still use history as a tool of oppression. Time for that **** to END and for people to stand up and be accountable for THEMSELVES.
 
That was 42+ years ago. I'm curious when you think all African Americans should be expected to move on with their lives? I think a majority of them have, but those who continue to claim discrimination is rampant need to get their heads checked. AA has offered these "whistleblowers" more opportunities than they can imagine.

You know how I paid for college? Loans and a job. I'm not rich. My family is barely middle class. I got good grades in high school and was able to go on to get a college degree. And most high schools in the country offer the same curiculum as my HS did... some might have worse social situations, but that isn't much reason to not study your ass off to make something of yourself.

And even if you don't want to go to college, it is still possible to be middle or upper class. You have to have goals and ambition to reach those goals to not be stuck working at a crap, minimum wage paying job your entire life.

Some of us have worked 2 and 3 jobs to provide for a family while we went to school. Shockingly...while we are enduring night and weekend classes in non-trad university settings we are sitting next to every race imaginable busting their asses too.
 
Both of the parties largely succeed in this regard.
 
those are talking points, not facts. how does a kid from harlem with a crack whore mother get an equal playing field with a senator's son?

They don't. That sucks but its life.
 
The Republicans want to be supportive to keep the have and the status quo in power and, as a result, continue to keep those who are struggling down.
 
The Republicans want to be supportive to keep the have and the status quo in power and, as a result, continue to keep those who are struggling down.

That's an extremely uninformed opinion.
 
That's an extremely uninformed opinion.

and very bad sentence structure to boot...Im confused...does she think republicans are trying to keep the wealthy John Kerry type democrats in power by oppressing the poor?

Really...those democrat welfare programs have been SO helpful ever since WW2...
 
The Republicans want to be supportive to keep the have and the status quo in power and, as a result, continue to keep those who are struggling down.

in reality its the dems who want to keep people poor and dependent on government. A nation where there are more rich people and less poor is one that is more hospitable to GOP election hopes. I have never met a rich GOPer who wanted more poor. Dem policies are clearly designed to addict people to the opiate of welfare socialism
 
I don't know how anyone voted for the party that consistently blocks Gay Marriage and other LGBT legislature as "pro-Civil Rights".

Understandably so - gay issues aren't considered to be 'civil' rights by many.
In fact, that's the basis of the difference - the key argument. Is gay marriage/rights *civil* right or not? You could flip it around and question how a party can be more upholding of civil rights if they support abortion (as in - most Democrats support the abortion choice)

(That doesn't sum up my thoughts on things, though)

There's more to the issue of 'civil rights' than 'gay marriage' - and even many Democrats are opposed to gay marriage, Like President Obama.

Basically - it didn't factor into the equation for me when I chose 'both'
 
Understandably so - gay issues aren't considered to be 'civil' rights by many.
In fact, that's the basis of the difference - the key argument. Is gay marriage/rights *civil* right or not? You could flip it around and question how a party can be more upholding of civil rights if they support abortion (as in - most Democrats support the abortion choice)

(That doesn't sum up my thoughts on things, though)

There's more to the issue of 'civil rights' than 'gay marriage' - and even many Democrats are opposed to gay marriage, Like President Obama.

Basically - it didn't factor into the equation for me when I chose 'both'

I get the rest of your point, but how are gay rights not a civil rights issue? Gay marriage aside, the fact that a homosexual couple (in certain states) can't get the same benefits as a straight couple is discrimination. And Republicans seem united in their opposition to anything involving homosexual civil unions and the benefits that come with said union.
 
those are talking points, not facts. how does a kid from harlem with a crack whore mother get an equal playing field with a senator's son?

How would you give them an "equal playing field"?
 
I get the rest of your point, but how are gay rights not a civil rights issue? Gay marriage aside, the fact that a homosexual couple (in certain states) can't get the same benefits as a straight couple is discrimination. And Republicans seem united in their opposition to anything involving homosexual civil unions and the benefits that come with said union.

(I don't feel this way) But quite a few feel that 'gay' isn't natural (aka - unnatural) and thus not subject to the protections and guarantees as a natural (or civil) right would have.

I, however, don't take issues of relationships when it comes to politics - I don't consider marriage opinions, spirituality, religion, and such things when it comes to my opinions on which party upholds or values what rights.

In *those* areas both of the parties seem to hold opposing stances - where one side is pro the other is anti, vise versa. :shrug: To me these issues are a headache and I don't based my votes on these issues unless these are the specific issues up for debate.

If the OP had asked directly "who is more favorable to gay-marriage" or "who is more pro-life" then the answer would be more cleaved one side or the other.
 
Last edited:
It depends on what right you're talking about.

Republicans are very protective of 2nd amendment rights, but not so hot on rights granted by amendments 4-6.

Democrats are very protective of 'human rights' (i.e. anti-discrimination, gay marriage, etc) but aren't great on the 2nd amendment.

Both democrats and republicans crap all over the first amendment for different reasons.
 
It depends on what right you're talking about.

Republicans are very protective of 2nd amendment rights, but not so hot on rights granted by amendments 4-6.

Democrats are very protective of 'human rights' (i.e. anti-discrimination, gay marriage, etc) but aren't great on the 2nd amendment.

Both democrats and republicans crap all over the first amendment for different reasons.

The bill of rights grants nothing
 
Oh, then I guess we have no rights.
You have rights by virtue of being human. The Bill of Rights simply prevents the government from abridging those rights. It does not grant those rights, nor is it meant to be an exhaustive list of them.
 
Oh, then I guess we have no rights.

I cannot help it if you are unlearned in the assumptions underlying the constitution and the bill of rights
 
I cannot help it if you are unlearned in the assumptions underlying the constitution and the bill of rights
Hell, all a person has to do is read the Bill of Rights to figure this stuff out.
Ninth Amendment said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
I cannot help it if you are unlearned in the assumptions underlying the constitution and the bill of rights

You have rights by virtue of being human. The Bill of Rights simply prevents the government from abridging those rights. It does not grant those rights, nor is it meant to be an exhaustive list of them.

Both of you appear to be operating under the mistaken assumption that rights are something intrinsic. Rights are meaningless unless recognized by other entities (governments, people, etc.) In recognizing certain rights, the constitution grants us those rights, since unless they are recognized they do not exist. You may prefer another term for it, but that's the reality of the situation, and anything else is simply semantics.
 
Both of you appear to be operating under the mistaken assumption that rights are something intrinsic. Rights are meaningless unless recognized by other entities (governments, people, etc.) In recognizing certain rights, the constitution grants us those rights, since unless they are recognized they do not exist. You may prefer another term for it, but that's the reality of the situation, and anything else is simply semantics.

take up your concerns with Madison, Jefferson, Locke Mason et al. I am sure they will appreciate your insight on the subject
 
Both of you appear to be operating under the mistaken assumption that rights are something intrinsic. Rights are meaningless unless recognized by other entities (governments, people, etc.) In recognizing certain rights, the constitution grants us those rights, since unless they are recognized they do not exist. You may prefer another term for it, but that's the reality of the situation, and anything else is simply semantics.
Um, no, the Constitution is predicated on the existence of natural rights. You may have some high-minded intellectual objection to it, or you may get all hard over positive rights for some self-serving reason or other, but that's just the way it is. :shrug:
 
take up your concerns with Madison, Jefferson, Locke Mason et al. I am sure they will appreciate your insight on the subject
You may have to explain to him who those people are. It's pretty apparent he's never heard of them.
 
take up your concerns with Madison, Jefferson, Locke Mason et al. I am sure they will appreciate your insight on the subject

Their opinions aren't relevant to the situation. Mostly because the situation was no different when they wrote the constitution. Partially because they're dead.
 
Back
Top Bottom