I was responding to @Timex.
Nesrie
2874
Yeah I know. But I am the one pressing the point. Do you remember what was happening 1917?
rowe33
2875
Can you smell what the Law is cooking??? Would love to watch this legal procedural!
Timex
2876
That’s clearly a typo, because the Rock is not in favor of such laws!
Nesrie
2877
I thought that was purposeful because he and Jason are kind of fighting laws right now, last I checked.
Likely there are people in 2019 who would use this law, yet still insist on being labeled “progressives”.
Nesrie
2879
Clearly somebody is, but 1917… WWI. I mean, there’s a chunk of the liberals that hadn’t fought and even won their rights yet. They weren’t even tracked back then because no one gave a shit. There is no comparison between that group and today, and again, the parties flipped.
If people want to use this as an example of why trying to do this now is a bad idea fine… but this particular statute, you can’t land that on the shoulders of today’s liberals. It’s just not theirs to own.
We all have things in the past we can’t hide from.
ed.
The Bill of Rights was only signed ~250 years ago. The Civil Rights Act was signed ~60 years ago. In 2019 these rights seem to be eroding as fast as we got them. ~60 years from now… God only knows.
So, what’s your point?
It seems like what is being argued is that it’s a bad law, but that it predates any of current generation of Liberal (or conservative) point of view. So, even if a self proclaimed Liberal had wrote the law in 1917, likely there views on issues would be alien enough that no one here would recognize them as being ‘liberal’. Just like, conservatives during the Civil War, who might be in favor of slavery, or White Supremacy might not be recognized by todays Conservatives as a fellow conservative.
View points change, nations change, and claiming this particular brand of law is the work of liberals is ignoring our very history. One in which everyone sets up laws that are crazy and clearly against the Constitution.
Nesrie
2884
When people use the terms conservative and liberal, they have fairly specific although not always agreed upon meanings today. Don’t mix the two. They’re not the same. These terms are not equivalent over the years.
I think to say that X and X happened in year Y such that it is a foregone conclusion it won’t happen today or in the future is hubris. There’s no cosmic law that says history can’t reverse itself.
Nesrie
2886
I guess it’s a good thing no one actually said it. What are you going on about now? If you want to make a point, then make a damn point. It has nothing to do with the point I made though.
It dishonest to try and claim the viewpoints of the 1917s actual align today. It’s like you just want to skirt around that to do what exactly again, oh yeah, make some other point you want to make but for some reason want to co-join to mine to do it.
But they might be the viewpoints of the future. It’s the bragging, “Ha! Such a thing could never happen today! People are simply different now!”, that is shortsighted/hubris.
Nesrie
2888
And who said that, who said that could never happen today?
In any event, do we know who exactly wrote and sponsored this law?
In any event, I think a fair number of modern conservatives might push back against the idea that they believe in slavery.
I think there are a few lawyers or research assistants lurking Qt3.
Sure, and I am sure their might be a historian or two as well, but that doesn’t mean anyone wants to waste time validating the idea that some 1917 law was specifically pass so that you could claim that liberals in 2019 are against free speech and the 1st amendment. That would be like asking rocket scientists to validate the idea that the Earth is flat.
