House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@BillRM,

You miss the point Hawkeye was trying to make about the political system and Martin Luther King, Jr. The era Hawkeye was referring to was the late 50's or early 60's.

Women had the vote by then, BillRM. Rolling Eyes

Blacks also had the vote, but, in parts of the South, they were effectively being prevented from voting, or even registering to vote.

The political system itself hadn't failed. The problem was that black people, particularly in parts of the South, weren't even being included in that political system because they were effectively being denied the right to vote. Martin Luther King Jr's actions led to the Voting Rights Act. That Voting Rights Act didn't change the political system, it just opened it to those who were previously disenfranchised--it ensured there would be no impediments to voting. MLK wasn't trying to change the political system--he believed in elected government.

And, right now our political system does work fine--all citizens do have the vote, and voting is what insures "A government of the people, for the people, and by the people". Our votes determine the government that represents us.

Telling people to get out and vote, or to protest a government action, does not have to include violence themed messages to be "armed and dangerous" or slogans like, "Don't retreat, reload"--unless you want to encourage violence with your rhetoric.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

The political system itself hadn't failed. The problem was that black people, particularly in parts of the South, weren't even being included in that political system because they were effectively being denied the right to vote.

You have to be kidding me refusing a large percent of the citizens the vote because of skin color is a failure of the political system.

To say nothing of allowing whites to run around in white hoods killing any black who would dare to annoy then for over a hundred years.

The blacks would have been morally right to take up arms over the matter without question any time during that hundred year’s period.

In the end it took, Federal troops with bayonets fixed on their rifles to get the blacks citizens their rights.

In other word force repeat force deadly force ready to be used if needed.

Footnote blacks from time to time did take up arms during those hundred years and it took machine guns and planes bombing American cities in the south to put them down.

The only bombs ever drop on Americans cities was drop by southern whites as a matter of fact.

Second footnote the little civil war with the machine guns and the bombing planes was trigger when arm WW1 black Vets surrounded a jail and refused to allow a white mob the right to break in and hang a very young man without trial for raping a white woman.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Firefly if the Tulsa blacks had been a little bit faster and seized the military equipment in 1921 instead of the whites we may never had hear of MLK as the southern blacks might had gone on to win their freedom by force of arms as our founding fathers in fact did.

In any case there was no moral barrier at the time for blacks to take up arms in self defense and rebellion.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

"IF?" What do you want to do; rewrite history?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

and voting is what insures "A government of the people, for the people, and by the people". Our votes determine the government that represents us.

Sure it does, FF. Your choice, the devil or the deep blue sea.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

"IF?" What do you want to do; rewrite history?

Mostly I allowed others such as Firefly to do so but when I do so I also placed the word IF and do not pretend that it is facts.

Oh, any one who deal honestly with the worlds of ifs IE alternate histories is in very good company for example Winston Churchill of all people wrote a book dealing with a world where Lee won at Gettysburg and the south won the civil war.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

You have to be kidding me refusing a large percent of the citizens the vote because of skin color is a failure of the political system.

No, it's a problem with the social system, not the political system. The political system refers to the voting process and a representational government. You are confusing social factors with the structure of the political process. There is nothing wrong with our political process--the manner in which we choose those who hold public office--it's determined by voting.

The social system at the time the Constitution was written did not recognize blacks or women as full citizens with voting rights. Those were the prevailing social attitudes. As social attitudes changed, all citizens were eventually afforded full Constitutional rights. And our Constitutional freedoms (of speech, of assembly) made possible the peaceful demonstrations and protests that helped to bring about those social changes.

The Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves if they can see your posts. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

In the end it took, Federal troops with bayonets fixed on their rifles to get the blacks citizens their rights.

No it didn't. School desegregation was accomplished by the Supreme Court. Blacks already had the vote at that time, but they were essentially prevented from voting by poll taxes, harassment, and intimidation etc., in parts of the South. Martin Luther King, Jr led a movement that addressed those issues--without resorting to violence--and resulted in the Voting Rights Act.
The federal troops simply made sure that the law was enforced--they were not responsible for actually getting anyone their rights.

What is your problem sticking to the topic of this thread?

Are you suggesting that those who disagree with the government should resort to violence--like trying to assassinate members of Congress, like Gabrielle Giffords?

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

No, it's a problem with the social system, not the political system.

If that was the case, then the social system would have solved the problems. It didn't. It took the political system, first the courts, then Congress and the President.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Are you suggesting that those who disagree with the government should resort to violence

If the government allow a group to be murder at whim and denial the rights of citizenship they have every damn right to used deadly force.

The founding fathers fought a war and used deadly force over the issue among others that they was not granted voting rights in the English Parliament.

If they feel that the voting issue was of such a character as to allow them to used force to break away from England they could not by that logic complain if other citizens was also willing to used force and rebellion against them for the same type of behaviors.

So yes any group who are denial voting rights for a hundred years and who members was murder at whim during that period have every damn right in this world and any other world to used deadly force to change the matter to their benefit. Oh and that would include assassinating members of the KKK who went out and kill blacks in the middle of the night or those in the government who supported and allow them to do so.

Now your nonsense that blacks was not consider citizens. After the civil war they was full constitution citizens and it was the Federal government that took over a hundred years to decide to enforce those rights after making an illegal deal with the southern whites a decade or so after the end of the civil war.

There is no moral duty to wait for a hundred years in the hope that change could then be done in a peaceful manner.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

If that was the case, then the social system would have solved the problems. It didn't. It took the political system, first the courts, then Congress and the President.

The notion of racial inequality was a social value. The notion of slavery was a social value. The political system abolished slavery and gave blacks the vote and ended institutionalized segregation. It did not fully change social attitudes toward blacks. Martin Luther King Jr. had moved toward addressing social issues of racism, poverty, and lack of economic power after voting rights were secured. Our social system is still very much struggling with racial issues and attitudes--the problem is far from being solved, even though the country elected a black President.

In the case of women's suffrage, the issue was addressed and fought on the social level long before it actually reached the political level in Congress with the Nineteenth Amendment. That one was a long, hard struggle on the part of women. Social activism on the issue was what helped to change attitudes and to finally bring it into the political arena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage_in_the_United_States

We see something similar going on now with the issue of gay marriage. Social attitudes toward homosexuals have changed in the past few decades--otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about legalizing gay marriage.

3 Replies

@firefly,

No one have a duty to wait until others change thier minds to be safe a night from being drag out of your home and hung or at best beaten.

No one have a duty to wait a hundreds years for the rights of citizenship.

After all by your logic the founding fathers should had just waited until the public in England decided to grant them equal rights even if that took a hundred years.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Thomas Jefferson is definitely twirling in his grave listening to your views.

Our Founding Fathers fought a necessary war to establish an independent nation and an independent government. They then drafted a magnificent Constitution which has been flexible enough to grow with our country. That document provides the means to address grievances with the government. We do not need to resort to violence to change the government in power.

Quote:

If they feel that the voting issue was of such a character as to allow them to used force to break away from England they could not by that logic complain if other citizens was also willing to used force and rebellion against them for the same type of behaviors.

They could point out to you that you are no longer governed by a Monarch. They could point out to you that your "force" is in the vote you put in the ballot box. You have an elected government--and a government with checks and balances. You can vote that government out of office.

Wake up--it's 2011--why are you babbling about what went on 150 years ago? We are a relatively young country, and we have evolved in our social thinking. And, I think, we have evolved for the better.

And, in this thread, we are discussing the shooting of a member of Congress.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Whether american social quality has evolved or rather devolved is a matter of great debate. We mostly agree that moving towards equality of the races and sexes is a good thing, but there are a lot of things that many of us think we have moved backwards on too. Progress is not a law of nature, it can not be assumed that we have moved forwards, we must evaluate.

0 Replies

Rep. Giffords continues to make encouraging progress. She is scheduled to be moved to a rehabilitation facility tomorrow.

Quote:

Gabrielle Giffords stands, tries to speak, husband says

Mark Kelly says his wife has been able to take a couple of steps with assistance from hospital aides. He says plans are progressing to move Giffords to a rehabilitation facility in Houston.
By Thomas H. Maugh II and Nicole Santa Cruz, Los Angeles Times
January 20, 2011

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has been able to take a couple of steps with assistance from medical personnel, and stand and look out the window of her hospital room, her husband, astronaut Mark Kelly, said in a news conference Thursday in Tucson.

Kelly said he also thinks Giffords has made some attempts to speak, but has been unable to because of the presence of a tracheotomy tube to help her breathe. The tube prohibits air from moving past the vocal cords.

She is also scrolling through an iPad, said Dr. Michael Lemole, a neurosurgeon at Tucson's University Medical Center, where Giffords has been receiving care since she was shot in the head nearly two weeks ago.

There are also indications that Giffords has maintained all of her vision. In tests with colored objects, she is able to note not only their location but also their color, doctors said.

"These are all fantastic advances for her. They do show higher cognitive function," Lemole said. "But I do want to caution … that she has a long road ahead of her."

On Friday, Giffords will be moved to the Institute for Rehabilitation and Research at Memorial Hermann hospital in Houston, where Kelly has been training for a space shuttle mission scheduled for April.

Giffords will be driven to an ambulance plane that will take her to Houston, said Dr. Peter Rhee, chief trauma surgeon at the medical center. He said the transition will be seamless. "We will do all the lifting," he joked.

Kelly said the family had considered a number of facilities throughout the country, all of which could provide excellent care.

"The critical factor in this decision is that it will let me be there by her side as much as possible every single day," he said. "I don't know how long this process is going to take. If I want to address problems with our teenage children, or consider returning to work, it makes the most sense that she is at Memorial Hermann in Houston."

At the rehab facility, Giffords' care will be overseen by Dr. John Holcomb, a retired Army colonel with extensive experience in treating penetrating head injuries. Giffords will initially enter the hospital's intensive care unit for evaluation, then be moved into a tailored rehabilitation program, Holcomb said in a statement.

Kelly said he is confident Giffords recognizes him. "She'll smile at me and will do things she'll only do around me, like pat me on the face," he said. "I can just look in her eyes and tell. She is very aware of the situation."

He added that he is "extremely hopeful she will make a full recovery.... In two months, you'll see her walking through the front door of this building."
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-giffords-medical-20110121,0,7173274.story

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

We see something similar going on now with the issue of gay marriage. Social attitudes toward homosexuals have changed in the past few decades--otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about legalizing gay marriage.

.

The gay right movement beginning marker was a three days riot that they are very proud of.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Well Jefferson was a slaveholder and the grievances processes was not open to blacks until after the civil war for blacks in the north and the late 1950s for blacks in the south.

It nice if you are white but for a large percent of the country history it was a life sentence of third class citizenship at the very best for blacks.

And third, Jefferson had no problem at all with members of society rebelling.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Every generation needs a new revolution.”
Thomas Jefferson quotes

In fact do you know any history at all Firefly???????

0 Replies

She is making amazing progress.
I mused, a week or so ago, about what the procedure would be regarding her House seat. It appeared to me to be unseemly to talk much about that. Just as well, as the media headed down a mistaken path.
Reference was made to an AZ law saying that if an elected official ceases to "... discharge duties for 3 consecutive months, the office will be deemed vacant."
Besides not defining "duties" it turns out the law does not apply to federal offices.
The House can vote her out, but that seems unlikely. The office holder or a pre-designated guardian can offer a resignation.
That happened in the case of Gladys Spellman of, I think, Maryland. She went into a coma and never came out of it. Her family had the authority to submit a resignation for her.
Even earlier, a member of the Senate (I think) held office for some 4 years while never being unable to cast a vote.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

babbling about what went on 150 years ago?

Firefly I am not a 150 years old and I remember very clearly when blacks men lives in the south was not worth two cents if they annoy the white power structure.

At this very moment, there is a movement in congress to create another completely new class of secondary “citizens” by means of repealing the 14 Amendment so if your parents were not legally in the country you are not a citizen either even it born here.

Wonder how that will work will they knock on your door in the middle of the night and then placed you on a plane at age 30 or so to a country you had never seen or have any ties to?

Or just used such people as a source of cheap labor who enjoy no legal protection.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

And, in this thread, we are discussing the shooting of a member of Congress.

Once more you are trying to be the thread police.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

A member of the Senate (I think) held office for some 4 years while never being unable to cast a vote.

"unable" should read "able."

1 Reply

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know