Originally posted by equistar
reply to post by ziggystrange
Me - Take a look at New York City, I have only been there once so maybe I am wrong but you can walk on one block and find all things Chinese then
another block all Italian, Latino, etc.. is there not beauty in the fact of celebrating different beliefs? Is it not yin and yang working segregation
and unity combined? Can we take that concept and expand it over the whole US?
Z - It all sounds reasonable until you say this.
E- Is it not yin and yang working segregation and unity combined? Can we take that concept and expand it over the whole US?
Z - Sounds a lot like separate but equal. But more relevant to the case in point, I am in NYC, and No.
Chinatown, little Italy, Little Odessa, Corona, Williamsburg, Harlem, etc. are not how you characterize the areas you mentioned. These neighborhoods
have flavor, but it's for common consumption. People of every Race and National origin populate the melting pot. We are not a perfect example of
peaceful coexistence, but we manage, and we like it the way it is.
What evades some, is that we are Americans, and we are not going to slide back to the wisdom of segregation under any name. I like that if I decide to
move to Harlem, I may have to be more tolerant, and vigilant, because I'm different but I can count on the law of the land not the neighborhood. I
like being Free to choose.
In the U.S. you describe, individual States would have the right to institute, unconstitutional laws designed to give comfort to an engineered
majority.This would take away my current right to choose.
Today, if someone objects to my Jewish Wife breathing, I can do something about it. Wherever I happen to be. I may lose my life, and or Wife, but
Freedom demands sacrifice, and sometimes death. But the all important law will be on my side.
Options are important in freedom, the Founding Fathers gave us options, and no border check points between States. I consider that mine now.
Yes we have not only the right, but the responsibility to amend the Constitution, but I do not believe what was intended was to give the people the
right to create a Segregated United Oppressive State Tyranny.
You ask me to trust that people are inherently benevolent, as a replacement for laws, I choose to keep the laws that limit my freedom to oppress
I should trust that we will castigate by economic embargo. No we have laws in place to prevent States from acting outside of the scope of their given
powers. Economic embargoes do not belong inside the borders of a United Nation. I prefer to have a Baseball Series against Massachusetts, than a Civil
War due to some newly vested perceived power, that can well be distorted.
I'm not paranoid, I'm vigilant and protective of my rights.
It's not that I don't trust that there are good people in every State. It's that I know there are bad ones. History has taught me that right here
in the US, we have people that would if capable, re institute Slavery. I have seen proposals for indentured labor as a means to gain Citizenship. I
find this idea to be offensive, but that's not the problem, it's illegal period.
At least, that's the way it's supposed to be, according to the Constitution.
I can still say that. I don't believe we have to resort to trading freedom for comfort of the few, or the intolerant. I don't know you, I can't
judge the content of your character from your words, it's your actions I can properly appreciate. This is why I have to say no to the ideas you
If you prevail by "lawful" means, I will submit to the Constitution, or Emigrate. I understand the consequences. My Father did this more than once,
I know the value of freedom because where he was born, there was none. Now that I have it, it's going to be difficult for someone to take it from me,
or like Charlton Heston said from my cold dead fingers.
Again, there is no accusation, only distrust, and vigilance. I had a friend once who was a bigot, see? I can be tolerant. I know many but let's
concentrate on Dennis. He hated, as he liked to call them "PRs", when I wasn't around, (he knew me) Dennis was one nasty little devil, he loved to
call people names, start fights, let them know he did not like them and were not welcome.
One day I was surprised to find Dennis in Spanish Harlem, he was at a "Cuchifrito" Restaurant gorging himself on PR goodies. I said WTF are "you"
doing here? He said, hoping nobody I know sees me, and gave me a little smile. "I swear"
Dennis would create a US that was divided by color, and National origin.
He then would treat "X's" any way he pleased in his protected area. But the next day he'd be at their Restaurant munching, and trying to do the
But this would not be allowed in his area. I'm not saying X's are better than whites, just better than Dennis. I'd rather see the X's happy than
Dennis, any day. Does Dennis represent me? absolutely not. I take precedence over Dennis because he is a Constitutional scofflaw. Dennis has
demonstrated that he can't be trusted not to step on others rights. It's only the law that prevents him from increasing the scope of his bigotry.
You and I pay a price for his bigotry. Let's get rid of his ideology, and then we can start to talk about trust in place of laws. Until then, I have
to keep on trusting the instruments that work. The Constitution, The Pen, and unfortunately, The Sword. The Founders were a lot like me, 2nd 3rd gen
immigrants. I believe I understand what they wanted to accomplish.
We're not there, but we can get there if we don't allow fear, and extreme thinking to derail us.
I believe the Nation described by States Rights proponents, has numerous fatal flaws, I'd like someone to properly explain how we would have an a
adequate military force, and domestic tranquility in this new US.
Militarized borders, little or no immigration, every state for itself is not a Union. Strongman States are toppled by the first high wind.
What about the rest of the world. How do we become Merlin, and cast a spell over them? I'm no Imperialist, but we need a presence overseas to survive
today. Our enemies would destroy a Rubik cubed Jello version of America.
For what? Intolerance? Fear? Segregation? Comfort? I have to say no.
1 President or 50?
No brainer, just 1.
Thank you for your civil discourse.
[edit on 6-1-2010 by ziggystrange]