U.S. Government shuts down.

[FireIceTalon]

Well, yes, I knew about that (civil rights), but I've said it before, where I live we don't see that kind of racism. I've talked to professionals who work both inland in LA and here on the south coast and they all say, every single one, that they would rather work on the coast because, "the people are so laid back, calm, and nice." Not my words, but I am paraphrasing. We just don't see this type of stuff, so I tend to forget it really exists. Are you right about the tea party? If racism is as rampant as you claim it to be, then I suppose it's a possibility, but because I have not seen it, I cannot independently verify it's (racism) strong support outside of areas in the deep-south and certain parts of Arizona.

I don't know if people on the coast are nicer and more laidback then in the southern states, or any other states for that matter. I think in general, you will find people of all types anywhere. As someone who is from LA himself, I've met my fair share of douche bags there. But ultimately, the distribution of particular personalities is probably quite hard to quantify just for the fact how do you define "nice" or "laidback", and besides, it isn't too important anyways.

But the southern US has been a very historically racist region. In this context, this probably wouldn't be an issue in CA due to the fact it doesn't have such a history. The problem is, if you grant state rights and power to one state, you have to do it to all of them. So while minorities in CA or other places that do not have a historically racist past aren't likely to be affected, it spells almost certain trouble for those in the southern and midwest states where institutionalized racism has historically been much more prominent, and in many ways, the racist culture and attitudes in those areas persists even today.

I don't think you are racist or want racism, but you have to take into account 'unintended consequences'.

As for the Tea Party being racist or not, they are very much so. I can link videos if you like.

Okay, I was obliviously being snarky there. I was using it in the context of someone who is so focused on only one agenda, that they can't see anything else. The irony, of course, is that by my own context, I'd also fit that shoe, as would anyone with a strong opinion, so to that end, I apologetically retract that statement used toward you.

What agenda? You mean the underlying racist ideology of 'states rights' advocates?

There is no agenda here, comrade. I am objectively analyzing an agenda in its historical context, not promoting one (unless being anti-racist and not wanting a reinstallment Jim Crow laws is somehow an agenda, and if it is so be it). Whenever I hear someone utter 'states rights', the first thing I think of is a desire for rollbacks on the civil liberities of minority groups because of its origin and history, to reestablish and bolster white privilege and subordinate African Americans as an underclass in a racially caste system. I know you are trying to transcend that, but given the reactionary agenda of those who support states rights, it only plays right into their hands, regardless of your own views. To want the states to have more power for your own benefits is also rather selfish. It is possible that I may benefit in some way from stronger states rights, but I would still fundamentally reject it because it would endanger decades of economic, political and social progress for oppressed groups in southern states.

Lastly, I dont view this is a matter of an opinion vs an opinion. I see it as you misconstruing (despite your noble intentions) it to be something that it isnt, and me explaining to you what it really entails, based on historical facts....