jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (37 posts)

That's My Lady: Draft Elizabeth Warren for President!

  1. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 15 months ago

    From an article taken from Salon Magazine, focus on the 8 minute video from the Senate chambers as Senator Warren spars with the Bankster President of Primerica Bank, during a committee hearing.

    On Tuesday, Senate Republicans invited Primerica President Peter Schneider to testify against proposed regulations that would protect retirement savings from sketchy financial schemes — and it didn’t take long before he wished they hadn’t.

    The Huffington Post’s Zach Carter reports that Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren wasted no time in embarrassing Scheider, whose outfit is precisely the sort of sketchy financial scheme that the legislation is designed to protect the elderly against.

    But, to be fair it is noted that despite this resistance being a GOP intiative, there is much of the banking industry that welcome these restraints on unethical practices as a method of culling out the hucksters and scammers and clearing the market for them to do legitimate business.

    Hats Off to them!

    http://www.salon.com/2015/07/22/elizabe … gulations/

    That is my gal, promoting the finest in progressive tradition,  holding the exploitive and dishonest accountable.  Why would the GOP not be interested in protecting those at a marked disadvantage regarding  information from the wolves that stand to profit at their expense? Why protect the bankers against working people? She catches them all with their breeches down.

    It is unfortunate that she does not have her hat in the ring, as she would have my full support.

    1. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      Good link. I agree with your perspective, except... what is so progressive about exposing BS?

      ps. I like Warren and her historical performance too.


      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Because 'the red' is where most of the BS is being manufactured!!!

        We talked about this once before, that perhaps the financial industry that the GOP calls itself protecting, may well not want its protection. Their kneejerk anti=regulatory attitude may be seen by the smart money in the business as counter-productive in the long term.

        Maybe there can be daylight between what it is the GOP advocates and the actual objectives of the industries that I always believed walked in lockstep with them. They may not be the ogres that I once believed them to be, they are honest business people who have nothing to fear regarding oversight to keep their line of work clean and raise confidence levels of their customers which translates into more profits,  fewer lawsuits and bad publicity.

        For the smart money, many of the GOP ideological constructs are a hinderence rather than a facilitator of their businesses??? I am impressed by the fact that even a few of them realize this.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      I like Elizabeth Warren also and especially the stances she takes on corruption within the system. However with regards to the predatory practices within the financial investment industry the 238 people who were changing their retirement plans in search of a more lucrative payoff were extremely gullible as what I can tell from this. I cannot find any more information than what Warren reveals in her testimony so I will ask is it immoral or un-ethical what Primerica did? Absolutely. But how can you regulate advice in such a volatile environment such as the stock market. Every bit of advice I have ever received is that to invest in the stock market you need to diversify your portfolio and wait it out in the long haul. Red flags go up all over the place when after a long term investment is required to profit you in a much shorter time return. That is unless you have an inside tract which many who profit from such scams do.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Tally-ho, RH
        Yes, Senator Warren takes no prisoners!!

        Here is a little more background on the case:

        The Department of Labor rule would impose a "fiduciary duty" on investment advisers, requiring them to act in the best interests of their clients. It would bar account managers from steering people into financial products that maximize benefits for investment specialists, rather than retirees. The Obama administration calculates that Americans lose $17 billion a year to hidden fees and conflicted investment advice.

        In other words, the rule is designed to prevent exactly what 238 Florida workers said Primerica did to them in the years leading up to the financial crisis — steer them into inappropriate financial products for the personal financial gain of the sales team.

        In 2012, lawsuits began pouring in, alleging that Primerica reps had convinced Florida firefighters, teachers and other public workers to invest in inappropriate retirement products. Even though the workers were near retirement, Primerica representatives encouraged them to ditch their government pension plans for much riskier government 401k accounts, which do not guarantee a minimum monthly payout in retirement. Dumping a pension plan for a 401k on the verge of retirement is frowned upon in the investment advice world. It needlessly jeopardizes retirement security, while offering little potential benefit.

        But the scheme posed major potential profits for Primerica's sales reps. Once these workers retired and moved out of their government plans, Primerica agents stood to profit from managing their retirement assets. Had they stayed in the pension programs, retirees would have simply collected their monthly payments, leaving nothing for Primerica to manage, and no commissions for Primerica agents to harvest. In January 2014, Primerica set aside $15.4 million to settle allegations involving 238 such cases.
        Can you imagine this Primamrica has an Amway Multi-level Marketing business model? But we are not buying detergent here.

        The infamous New York Mobster, Dutch Schultz, once said "People are Dumb"

        Trust me, older people are more trusting and less savvy about a lot of things not because they are dumb, but overwhelmed by desparation, technology among other things.

        Let the buyer beware is a good rule of thumb, but I remember how difficult it was to get the finance industry to be mandated to disclose to its 401K customers the nature and extent of the fees and surcharges that  did take huge chunks from your projected savings over time. A nickel here, a dime there. The industry resisted this sort of disclosure as being expensive, bureaucratic and budensome, standard GOP excuses.

        Having been a day trader for a while, the lure of easy profits is irresistable. But I have learned that insider trading is the rule rather than the exception. It is just very difficult to prove.

        There are simply too many things in this complex world that most of us are not keen on to allow   any industry to operate without oversight and regulation. Look at all the things we take for granted, starting with your supermarket and the products you pull down from the shelves with no real idea outside of what is on the label as to its true contents. I have never had the time to pick up my own 'do it yourself' bio-chemistry lab for the home.

        Yes, for most of us, red flags do go up except for the desparate. It was clear in the congressional session that Primerica offered advice that from any objective, the prudent person would find not in the interests of its clients. The concept is not far fetched, we do have 'truth in adversing' provisions in the law or in the pharmaceutical industry where proposed medications have to be proven both safe and effective. Primerica did not offer a 'safe and effective' product to its customers.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          I understand that the responsibility of the advisor is to look out for the best interests of their client while maximizing their own margins but what made the situation desperate when they were to receive their retirement money if they did nothing? Somebody must have made it a something for nothing proposal or what else would anybody do but to turn down a get rich quick scheme. But it is a serious situation when so many were duped.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

            Sometimes the retirement annuity is inadaquate,  Being a federal pensioner myself, I knew federal retiree folks who were able to get a second good job and who would agree to sign-off proceeds from the pension for a time in return for large lump sum loans, that they otherwise would not qualify for. They used the money to buy a house outright, for example. You can deceive people into believing that they can get something for nothing, it happens all of the time.

            There is no way I could consider taking a ironclad pension plan and ditch it in exchange for subjecting myself to needless market volatility risk, associated with 401K plans.  But, again, that is just me.

  2. Superkev profile image83
    Superkevposted 15 months ago

    So your "lady" is one who engaged in cultural appropriation by claiming to be a Native American in order to  benefit herself financially and professionally? Excellent.

    I guess it's not quite as bad as conducting US gov't business using a personal email account running through an unsecured home brew server in the basement of your 1.33 Million dollar 'primary' residence, huh?

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

      According to the NYT, while Warren has claimed Native American affiliation, she had  not proved membership in any Native American tribe. But the article also states that she had NOT benefitted herself  professionally based on her claim.

      The bottom line is this: I will take Senator Warren and all of her issues over the any one or the composite of bums running for Prez, from the GOP.

      Yes, indeed THAT is truly par excellence! I am looking at her politics and alignments that are  in the right direction, what do I care whether or not she has an eagle feather in her hair?

      1. Superkev profile image83
        Superkevposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        So someone who lies and engages in cultural appropriation is okay with you as long as they are a socialist democrat, gotcha. Nice to know how flexible some peoples ethics and standards can be as long as the other person shares their ideology.

        But, I guess if Rachel Dolezal can be black, Warren can claim to be native American with no repercussions from the normally perpetually offended. Amazing what you can get away with as long as you have the right letter after your name. (D) HAHAHAHA Hypocrites.

        The same crowd insisting that the Washington Redskins change their name are curiously silent on her cultural appropriation and lies. Funny that.

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Better a socialist democrat than a right wing fascist and plutocrat boot licker, if I had to choose between the two. The GOP mainstream now flows down the muddy right bank. Warren believes that she has native american heritage, so do I but that does not mean you meet the membership criteria of the tribal organizatons. Yes, I loathe rightwing philosophy, and will give Mickey Mouse the benefit of the doubt if he can avoid spouting it. The philosophy is more dangerous and troublesome than the individual. You and I both know that you would excuse David Duke because he is one of the 'family' right?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            - what is the right wing philosophy?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this


            2. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this


              This probably explains it better than I can.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                excerpt from link: "According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political Right opposes socialism and social democracy."
                what is a liberal democracy?
                we have a liberal democracy?
                uh no.
                What we oppose is doing away with our rights, guaranteed as best it can, by our democratic republic and constitution.

                1. Superkev profile image83
                  Superkevposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  It's a common misconception that we are a democracy, we are not. Even "Constitutional Scholar" Obama thinks so.

                  We are a Representative Republic.

                  "The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes a republic. The Federalist Papers when understood accurately will help us to understand the value of a republic and how to implement its precepts. The Federalist Papers were written to explain and influence acceptance of The Constitution before it was agreed upon. We (citizens/people) still need to confer with the founders in order to be on the same page…
                    and keep our republic, rather than allow to become a Monarchy. This type of regime is always a threat.

                    "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

                    And our independent/individual STATES are a vital feature.

          2. Superkev profile image83
            Superkevposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            Not even a little bit. But the left wing democrats sure excused KKK leader and recruiter Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa.) didn't they?

            How long did he filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act for? How many federal buildings and highways still proudly bear his name??? LOL

            Again, hypocrites to the last.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

              You guys keep dredging up ancient history, the GOP was ONCE the party of Lincoln, now it is the party of Donald Trump. It has been a half-century SuperKev, do you think that I am not aware that 'time changes space'. How about today, right now?  Talk about a letdown... A least Byrd stuck with the party as it changed its political and ideological orientation, it is better than the Dems that ran to Repubs as a result of the 'Southern Strategy'.

              1. Superkev profile image83
                Superkevposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                So 1964 is now "Ancient History" huh? Well in that case so too is the civil war and the flag that goes with it.

                Slavery ended 160 years ago, so why don't you tell THAT to the grievance mongers and race baiters you support? Ancient history, right? Get over it, right?? Not even worth bringing up it was so long ago, ancient even.

                As far as the "southern Strategy" as usual, wrong again.

                Strom Thurmomd was the only democrat who changed parties. Al Gore Sr., J. William Fullbright and Robert Byrd, all democrats, voted NO on the 1964 Civil Rights act. That's NO, N-O, as in NO, I do not want civil rights for black Americans. And they remained democrats.

                The same J. William Fulbright, on whom Bill Clinton bestowed the Medal of Freedom. Fulbright was one of the 19 senators who signed the “Southern manifesto” defending segregation.

                And Al Gore Sr. is the father of former VP, Al Gore Jr. who as we all know, is best known for inventing the internet.

                You were saying?

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  Maybe as soon as Southern Whites can drop their affinity for the Confederate flag, maybe then we can put the issue of slavery behind us. That was 150 years ago, by the way.

                  Why do you think the Blacks so strongly support the Democratic Party today, if they are the anti-civil rights party? Perhaps there is a glaring truth that you refuse to see that is before your very eyes. I am saying that regardless of what happened 50 years ago, the roles of each party is quite clear, TODAY.

                  As for slavery, one can forgive, but only a  fool forgets,   The mantra of the right that says that slavery's existence had not had an effect of the freedman and their prodigy. What about the 100 years of Jim Crow and legalized segregation and discrimiation after the slaves were freed. That takes us to 1965, does it not. As JFK once said that inspite of the fact that the Emacipation Proclamation occurred 100 years ago (1963 speech), a century later , their descendents are still not free..... You want to talk about ancient history, how about that?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    Today you are as free as the rest of us. How much more free do you want to be?
                    We are all as free as we want to be within the boundaries of law and justice.

  3. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 15 months ago

    A thoughtful comment desrving a thoughtful reply.

    We are still patriotic, but diverse and will always differ in our world view and opinion. But in times of trial, 9/11, Pearl Harbor, you can bet that Americans of all stripes will circle the wagons. Black folks got involved in fighting fascism abroad during WWII while segregation and bigotry ruled at home. It is not easy for us all to cover grievances to acknowledge patriotism(unified thoughts and ideas) when your reality as a group or individual is different and there is no real explanation as to why. Patriotism is not jingoism, no longer a knee jerk reaction in times other than immediate crisis. Yes, I am American, but want the society to improve, and thats means shaking the apple cart. Patriotism means prodding our country, its culture and such to do better. If we really cared, this is a goal we all have, even if we pursue it from different directions.  I live here, how could I want for anything else.

    The whole does not exist without considering its component parts. You  and I find that you have definite opinions about the left and its philosophy. It is hard to join in the chorus when I have a couple of hounds snapping at my heels all of the time. I am glad that you asked and will always admire you for having the courage to ask.  For Blacks, if it was just as simple as a difference in the amount of melanin in the skin and all other life affecting influnces in our society were equal, we wouldn't be having this discussion. When we advance to the point where people are accepted for their differences (not conformity) but treated equally, then all of this can go away. What is the interest of the nation as a whole? Have you really defined it? You can talk to different people and they will have a different opinion of what that is. You and I have had stark differences in opinion on many of these points. Judging people based on the content of their character is something that we have yet to attain to.

    When we cease making hay of peoples differences remove adverse expectations and outcome associated with merely having more melanin, different reproductive plumbing and so many examples, things turn around.

    This may well be insolveable, but like the value of pi, the more decimal points after the 3.14, the better and more accurate you get, but there is no definitive number (answer) all the same. The fact that things have improved relative to the past show that improvement is possible, lets just keep working to see how much we can get to reaching pi or nirvana in America that much more closely. That is all that we can do.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      It's difficult when I agree with a hard line lefty - am I losing my mind?!? smile

      Credence, I think it goes deeper than you are thinking of here (if I read your mind right).  Go back 20,30 years and look at black youth, for instance.  As a group they took great pains to be as different, and as in-your-face about it, as possible.  The group was more important - they had to be a group, not a part of society.  The backwards caps.  The swinging, strutting gait.  The boombox on the shoulder.  Eubonics.  On and on, to display as "loudly" as possible that they were black, different and better.  Gays today do the same thing, albeit to a lesser amount.  Parades declaring their status with loud colors.  Rainbows.  "Secret" codes (remember the congressman in the bathroom?).

      Not picking on blacks or gays; picking on the idea that we find a need to identify with a specific group and thus have a reason or excuse to decide that all others are bad.  It isn't just the whites, the rednecks, the southerners, the religious (thinking of Westboro) or anyone else; it's ALL of us that put their little group ahead of society.  It's nonsense; it's nothing more than a way to make us feel better about ourselves because all those people outside the group are wrong and inferior.  Are we really that low in self esteem that we require public humiliation of anyone different, the adulation of our group for the simple reason we joined up?

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

        I hear you, that applied to young people. That is the definition of teens and young people, they want to be different. We did it in my time with Afro hairdos, the dasheikis, platform shoes. Just a handful of years before,  kids were letting their hair grow long, dropping out, tuning in and turning on while bad mouthing the 'establishment'. Isn't always in your face?  There was a sea change of almost everything based on the counterculture movement.

        I don;t know that it was so much different. The eighties, breakdancing and boom boxes was part of urban culture, many consider to be part of an art form, a way of expression.

        I explain the phenomenon from the 1960s and 70's and was probably true thereafter. Simply put, we did not embrace society because society did not embrace the group and facilitate its amalgamation into the whole.  In a society that spent so much time beating you up from every angle, social, political, economic, who could talk about kumbaya? You were reminded in a million ways of your lack of relevance to anything really important. We had our James Brown, black pride thing to attempt to help people with little self esteem, particularly the younger ones. We have to be assertive to stand on the level playing field non-hispanic whites take for granted.

        It is difficult to merge in a society when non-hispanic whites control over 90 percent of this nation's wealth, while hispanics and blacks control 2.3 percent each. The other 5 percent by Asians and others. Out of that 90 percent, 70 plus percent is controlled by the 10 percent upper income groups. Those outrageous statistics are not there because some people work so much harder than others.  There is so much economic disparity, This is still very much a 'white mans country' and until that idea is shaken in more than just mere word, we are going to have problems.

        How is possible that white male excons have a better chance of being considered for a job than a college educated black male with no record. This stuff has been documented in many studies, which I can provide if you wish. That is extraordinary.

        I don't deny that we have house cleaning to do as to cultural tendencies that conflict with success in the general society. But there are plenty of things beyond our control that still need to be worked on. How the mainstream society feels about our group opinion good or bad is irrelevent, because I don't have the power and influence to have that have consequences to anybody. My voice says that while  I cannot advocate taking money from one to enrich the other, I will say that the trend of concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands is going to make the prospect of finding common ground and peace among us all the more difficult.

        We behave like a group because it seems like we have been targeted as a group in every and all aspects that in  matter in American life for negatively disparate treatment.

        Law Enforcement
        Criminal Justice System
        Lack of wealth and affluence

        For Non-hispanic whites, their group IS Society and we are all reminded that all of our relative culture and aspirations are subordinated to this.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          "It is difficult to merge in a society when non-hispanic whites control over 90 percent of this nation's wealth, while hispanics and blacks control 2.3 percent each."

          I hear you, and understand what you're saying, but lets talk about that sentence.  You do realize that every middle class person (or below) can say the same thing?  That it has become nearly impossible to advance beyond middle class?  It's difficult for a middle class black to advance, yes; it's nearly as difficult for a middle class white, and sticking to race (or anything else) as an excuse not only doesn't change that, it makes it worse.  You identify with a group that finds itself "disadvantaged" (real or imagined), any group, and it becomes and excuse, a reason, to never do any better.  Add in that as long as you DO identify that way, neither the mainstream nor the elite want you on board with them.  Even if they are race (or gay or whatever) blind, they don't need or want such identification in their midst.  Even when tolerant in the extreme, no one wants a group member, chip on shoulder, announcing to everyone in earshot that "I'm different!  I'm better!  And you better know it!"  It's a matter of Karma (poor word as I don't mean the metaphysical); face the world with a chip and the world will return it with interest.  Show that you are race conscious, then, and it will be returned.  Or show that you don't care, and most (not all, but most) people will return the same attitude.

          So...if you MUST be a groupie, keep it to yourself in society.  Be just a person, not gay, not black, not hispanic, not female, not anything but a person.  No need to hide in a closet, but do not announce it to everyone in eye/ear shot, either.  And if that attitude can spread, if we can eliminate the "groupie" need from us, the world will be a better place for everyone.

          Credence, I come from the opposite side of the race fence, but I lived in a community where I was in the 10%.  I worked in a location that was 50-50, but where the people were just people.  Only twice in 22 years of supervising a mixed crew did race come up - once where blacks complained of being mistreated and once when whites (given the same nasty task) made the same complaint.  It didn't take but a few minutes for the two "leaders" to put their heads together on the matter and it never happened again. 

          That's what happens when people are just people.  Misunderstandings and quick anger will happen, but it blows over quickly when so obviously false.  Of course, it requires that everyone, not just one race or group, take the stance that people are people.  You know what it feels like to be looked down on; allow me to assure that it doesn't feel that way only to the black race.  No one appreciates it and as long as you are a part of the problem, you cannot be a part of the solution. 

          Personally, I find disdain useful when someone expresses that "I'm better because you're (whatever)".  I expect tolerance, or at least quiet, from the people around me and will not allow the gang mentality to rise.  If necessary, I will leave the area, and that includes my own race, sex, sexual preference - whatever/whoever, it is it is not to be tolerated.  And, on the whole, I believe I've made some small strides in my life in eliminating such intolerance/mistreatment from others as a result.  Example goes a long way.

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

            You asked me for my opinion and I am telling you why these things happen from a perspective of someone who lives through it, not from outside the store front window. You and Kathryn share the same conservative fallacy, that your 'common sense" and personal experience has greater weight than years of objective studies and reports by professionals in the field. The same fallacy I get from the conserves on climate change. I find that very irritating, making it impossible for a conservative to ever be convinced of the truth of a situation, because he or she insists on a flat earth when all evidence points otherwise. But that evidence is invalid because it is politically motivated by the left? It is not just you but the mighty-righty on the threads that know more about our lives that we do. They are determined not to learn anything beyond their pre-conceived notions. Ask  GM Williams and other people of color as to whether I make all of these things up. Perhaps to acknowledge the truth would be more painful than the majority culture can accept. 

            You guys amaze me, you tell me that 'liberal" college professors don't have the best interests of the country at heart, but the Koch Brothers, the Waltons do? While you tell me we all need be Americans, obviously, because those liberal college professors might actually consider advocating for the needs of the poor, they don't have the country's best interests at heart. You already sort out the poor from being "Americans".

            You may be a wonderful guy on an individual basis, but I am talking about a culture. There is no way that almost 30 percent of the population having 5 percent of the wealth of the nation is going compete with the other 60 percent that has 90 percent of the wealth. You don't need smoke and mirrors to acknowledge probabilities based on those stats. There is going to be inequity much more often than not when you compare 1 random family of one group to one of  another. Of course, you are a nice guy, but the big picture has no reflection of your personal experiences. It is simple to say "people are people" but how does that translate in practice? When the white race looks down upon the black race, it means unemployment, unjustified and excessive incarceration, redlining, disparities in application of law and criminal justice and the list goes on. What is the outcome for you as a white man when I look down at you? Nada!

            I appreciate your personal effort, we all should strive to be better on an individual basis as the beginning of meaningful change, but on the national stage over the prospects of large groups of people, it is not that simple, is it? If there were more people that took your attitude of intolerance with this behavior, we would have no need for the conversation. While most Anglos are not hostile, they accomodate unwittingly the perceptions and assumptions that are the linchpins of the racism as it is still revealed in this society and culture. 

            You talk about the Eden liberals always pine for. Well I say it is just as unrealistic given the distribution of wealth and power in our society for everyone to be just "people". Too many stratifications, race, religion, ethnicity, social class, you name it.  My solution is addressing consolidation of wealth and inequity with solidifying law to insure that those that are different are not treated differently to the extent that this can be controlled. This gets us to best of all possible worlds, and the continued step in the correct direction.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

              Wilderness, try not to take offense. We both believe in straight speaking and sometimes it does not help to mince words as the truth is not always pleasant, at least from our perspective.

    2. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 15 months ago in reply to this

      RH, I ran out of space to address your question.

      The consequences of breaking a law are penalties, people as a result will have good reason to adjust their behavior. Something like this is better than assuming that people will do the right thing without it.  That is  having the law and its surrounding controversy regarding intent and application. Without it, we would have to wait for all those hearts to change subjecting disaffected members of society to unfair and disparate treatment without remedy. I cannot deal with emotions we can get a handle around action and behavior, that may be the best among choices of how to proceed.

      Under the first amendment, I have to acknowledge the right of Confed flag supporters to waive their banners to their hearts content on private property only.

      Unlike the monuments to Confederate leaders and such, the flag as a source of far greater contention is irrelevant and inappropriate on public property, just as the Nazi swastica would be. We have a national flag, state flag and sometimes even a municipal flag that is representative of all of the people, or at least not a focus of contention for large swaths of the population that live under its banner.

      I have once said that maybe people can put the flag issue to a vote in their respective states. But, i know that the African American community even if its desire to have the flag taken from public property is thwarted, will have its reprisal in the form of political and economic sanctions.