View Full Version : Affirmative Action
Most conservatives feel that AA discriminates against white men or whites in general unfairly. I feel that it does not. So we will findout if it does by using the measuriung stick the courts use to deteromone discrimination, disparate impact.
Now I would like to see the numbers that show Affirmative Action discriminates unfairly and creates a disparate impact upon the majority of white people in this country.
No ideology will be accepted. Opinion or statements like AA discrimanates against whites, or is reverse discrimination is unacceptable. Only numbers that show that whites have suffered diiscrimination in numbers equal to or greater than blacks, hispanics and other colored minorities. Women shold be counted, but since there are white women who want to say that AA discrimninates using the same argument, sex will not be used as a factor in this discussion.
I wll say this one more time, the usual conservative rhetoric will not be aceptable as replies for this topic. Numbers or nothing!
I-RIGHT-I
01-14-2003, 05:01 AM
Ok. Here are the numbers. Count how many white people there are in this country.
That is your number.
Affirmative Action by it's very definition, purpose and results are discriminatory in favor of minorities. Because it has become the law of the land every person this law doesn't favor, by default punishes. The question should not be about disparate impact it should be about constitutional legality. Disparate impact is a moral measurement not something the courts should be concerned with. This is another case of the Liberals imposing their own standards on society and legislating morality.
impact.
Now I would like to see the numbers that show Affirmative Action discriminates unfairly and creates a disparate impact upon the majority of white people in this country.
The way you stated your question makes it impossible to answer. There is no mathematical way that Affirmative Action could have a disparete impact on the majority of Whites, the fact that they are the majority negates this possibility.
Affirmative Action is and will always remain state sponsored racism because it favors one group over another without regard to the individual.
Two people apply for the same job, they have the exact same qualifications and either one would make a good candidate, nne is hired over the other because of the color of his skin.
What do you call that?
lgllady
01-14-2003, 10:15 AM
Why stop at whites when Affirmative Action hits Asians as hard, or even harder than whites.
The day when Affirmative Action could do some good has long since passed. AA is no longer being used to level the field and give deserving minorities a chance. It is being used as an excuse for poor performance. It's not equality of opportunity, it's equality of outcome. Each slot taken by a non-performing illiterate who got out of high school because of affirmative action is a slot a deserving student is deprived of, whether that student is white, asian or venusian.
Day 1.
All opinion and rhetoric, no factual information to support their claims.
Meshuga Mikey
01-14-2003, 06:14 PM
Most conservatives feel that AA discriminates against white men or whites in general unfairly. I feel that it does not. So we will findout if it does by using the measuriung stick the courts use to deteromone discrimination, disparate impact.
Now I would like to see the numbers that show Affirmative Action discriminates unfairly and creates a disparate impact upon the majority of white people in this country.
No ideology will be accepted. Opinion or statements like AA discrimanates against whites, or is reverse discrimination is unacceptable. Only numbers that show that whites have suffered diiscrimination in numbers equal to or greater than blacks, hispanics and other colored minorities. Women shold be counted, but since there are white women who want to say that AA discrimninates using the same argument, sex will not be used as a factor in this discussion.
I wll say this one more time, the usual conservative rhetoric will not be aceptable as replies for this topic. Numbers or nothing!
http://people.delphiforums.com/artcruncher/WOOPSdis.jpg
Meshuga Mikey
01-14-2003, 06:17 PM
Day 1.
All opinion and rhetoric, no factual information to support their claims.
IS YOU POSTIN THIS TO IMPRESS YOUR STUDENTS IN BROOKLYN HIEGHTS HI SCHOO FOO?
DAY ONE ---THIS PUKE FACE~!!!
http://people.delphiforums.com/artcruncher/epap2A.gif
FER GOODNESS SAKE---- GO EAT SUM CAKE~!FOO!!!!
Satan
01-14-2003, 11:09 PM
Day 1.
All opinion and rhetoric, no factual information to support their claims.
<jot, jot>
I'm marking my calendar. That has GOT to be the shortest post you ever made. ;D
Satan
01-14-2003, 11:17 PM
Two people apply for the same job, they have the exact same qualifications and either one would make a good candidate, [one] is hired over the other because of the color of his skin.
What do you call that?
IM, I was really hoping you'd venture a response to this one. It seems a legitimate question to me.
You cannot ask for 'factual information' to disprove you, and then proceed to limit what factual information will be acceptable to the sources you happen to concur with. It just don't work that way.
Two people apply for the same job, they have the exact same qualifications and either one would make a good candidate, [one] is hired over the other because of the color of his skin.
What do you call that?
IM, I was really hoping you'd venture a response to this one. It seems a legitimate question to me.
You cannot ask for 'factual information' to disprove you, and then proceed to limit what factual information will be acceptable to the sources you happen to concur with. It just don't work that way.
In this instance I must because too many people in this forum refuse to understand that the scenario above has applied consistently to blacks and hispanics in this nation. It occurs at a much higher rate than what people here call reverse discrimination or state sponsored discrimination. Therefore evidence must be shown that it causes an equally disparate impact upon the enitre white population as discrimination impacts the black or hispanic population. If it does not meet this standard, it cannot be true. I am just holding people here to the standards the courts hold everyone to regarding this issue.
The scenario above as it relates to blacks or hispanoics is ignored by most people who claim to be conservative. All claims of racial discrimination made by us have to be fake, made up or inspored by teh so-called poverty pimps and race hustlers. To most conservatives the only racism is practice by blacks against whites, or by the federal goverment against whites.
Very few conservatives see how this is playing the race card, no only race hustling blacks play the race card. Since many of you argue so strongly that this is discrimination, I would figure thast somewhere, somebody would have the statistics that show a decline in white college enrollment, a decline in white unemployment and promotions and a decline in white construcion of homes and other buildings.
This decline would have to create equal rates of unemployment, poverty levels increases and income reduction for whites so that the white community would have equal rates of unemployment, poverty and median income as do blacks and hispanics, etc.
This information will not be found because it doesn't exist. Furthermore there is no such thing as reverse discrimination, because for reverse discrimnation to occur, blacks would have to be the ones turning down qualified whites because of race and nothing else. Quotas are illegal, so qoutas are not the issue. So what do we have left as we examine the argument on the right?
Nothing. No factual basis, and no evidence.
So why do so many white conservatives spout out this stuff and believe it like it's the word of God himself?
Finally, if you go to an employer and ask why you weren't hired, and they tell you that you were not hired because they had to hire a black guy, don't you think that's playing the race card?
Satan
01-15-2003, 01:53 PM
[/i]You cannot ask for 'factual information' to disprove you, and then proceed to limit what factual information will be acceptable to the sources you happen to concur with. It just don't work that way. [/i]
In this instance I must because too many people in this forum refuse to understand that the scenario above has applied consistently to blacks and hispanics in this nation.
But see, IM, the problem with that is that you can't make up rules regarding what consitutes 'evidence'. The truth (the real truth) is the truth no matter the source. Different sources will present different versions of the truth, which is the whole purpose of investigating opposing viewpoints...to determine whose 'version' is the factual truth. Otherwise, as in this case, you come across as asking "Do you still beat your wife? Well, prove it."
OK, I'll make it easier. We'll start over...
Most conservatives feel that AA discriminates against white men or whites in general unfairly. I feel that it does not. So we will findout if it does by using the measuriung stick the courts use to deteromone discrimination, disparate impact.
This ought to be interesting. By all means, use 'the measuring stick' to explain why you feel that way. Be my guest.
Now I would like to see the numbers that show Affirmative Action discriminates unfairly and creates a disparate impact upon the majority of white people in this country.
So would I. Show me those too.
No ideology will be accepted. Opinion or statements like AA discrimanates against whites, or is reverse discrimination is unacceptable. Only numbers that show that whites have suffered diiscrimination in numbers equal to or greater than blacks, hispanics and other colored minorities. Women shold be counted, but since there are white women who want to say that AA discrimninates using the same argument, sex will not be used as a factor in this discussion.
I wll say this one more time, the usual conservative rhetoric will not be aceptable as replies for this topic. Numbers or nothing!
Hallelujah! JUST THE FACTS! Go for it!
(Why are you staring at me? Was there a question in there somewhere?)
Sky,
A person cannot bring up an example like ONE white person got denied a job because someone hired a black person because of AA and claim that this policy is discrimnating against ALL white people. Yet that is what most conservatives are doing when they cmake this claim.
In order to stop this, I stated that we would go by the measuing stick courts use when determining discrimination, Disparate impact. So then the question must be answered by whites does AA create a disparate impact upon the majority of white people in this country?
To some, the example of one white person not getting a job, while a black person was hired due to AA is disparate impact. Yet that impact is on only one person. In order to make a policy change we must study whether or not this policy creates such an impact upon the majority of the citizens who are complaining.
Facts show that whites are not adversely affected by AA as a whole. Facts also show that a majority of blacks still face discrimination in schools and on jobs, just to name a couple of areas. This is disparate impact.
So in order to make it easier, I stated that whites must be impacted at levels equal to or greater than blacks are . If shown, this would show disparate impact, and it would validate the argument that AA discriminates unfairly against whites.
The truth in this matter cannot be found by 2 or 3 isolated examples, or hypothetical situations where someone black got hired just because of their skin color, and not based on skill.
I think that conservatives need to examine what they are saying, because there is NEVER any circumstance mentioned by any of you where a white person gets a job and they are not as qualified as the black applicant, and the white person got the job because of their skin color.
This is the majority of how discrimination has worked, and it has worked for the benefit of whites, many who have circumvented the rules and twisted applicant numbers in order to avoid having to follow the LAW.
This is why I say that certain laws need to be enforced stronger.
We will not work with the small number technique. You people are saying that the policy must end because it discriminates unfairly against whites as a whole, not one or two examples of where some whites didn't get a job because the company they applied to had been refusing to hire minorities and was forced to do so because they were breaking the law. So the evidence to support the claim must prove that this law hurts whites as a whole.
It's just that simple.
Satan
01-15-2003, 05:06 PM
Good luck, IM. As long as you insist on only allowing us to 'prove' what YOU believe, you might as well just babble on by yourself.
It's just that simple.
Ed Edwards
01-15-2003, 07:22 PM
The more people that have jobs,
the more likely I am to have a job.
If AA makes jobs for some black person,
it makes my chance of having a job
better. Therefore, i being a white man,
have a better chance to get a job.
AA is good for a white guy like me.
If AA makes jobs for some black person,
it makes my chance of having a job
better.
But of course it doesn't make jobs for anybody except those who administer it and the lawyers who sue over it.
I think that conservatives need to examine what they are saying, because there is NEVER any circumstance mentioned by any of you where a white person gets a job and they are not as qualified as the black applicant, and the white person got the job because of their skin color.
This is the majority of how discrimination has worked, and it has worked for the benefit of whites, many who have circumvented the rules and twisted applicant numbers in order to avoid having to follow the LAW.
This is why I say that certain laws need to be enforced stronger.
We will not work with the small number technique. You people are saying that the policy must end because it discriminates unfairly against whites as a whole, not one or two examples of where some whites didn't get a job because the company they applied to had been refusing to hire minorities and was forced to do so because they were breaking the law. So the evidence to support the claim must prove that this law hurts whites as a whole.
It's just that simple.
I think the problem you have is that you don't understand where most of us are coming from on this subject. You seem to think we don't like Affirmative Action because it hurts whites as a race, this could not be further from the truth. Affirmative Action is bad because it supports discrimination on the basis of race and that is what is bad about it.
If you are going to say that discrimination the way it has occurred in the history of the US ,or anywhere else in the world for that matter, is wrong. Then how can you try and fix the problem by discriminating against another group of people?
The simple fact is that if we are going to fix the problems of discrimination we have to judge every person as an individual, race can not play a role. We need laws to assure that this is what takes place, and we need to punish those that continue to discriminate. What we don't need are quotas that force people to hire minorities in a misguided attempt to make up for past wrongs.
It is as simple as that.
Meshuga Mikey
01-16-2003, 12:25 PM
those who support AA, are for the most part, a bunch of DRUNKS~
lgllady
01-16-2003, 12:47 PM
I think that conservatives need to examine what they are saying, because there is NEVER any circumstance mentioned by any of you where a white person gets a job and they are not as qualified as the black applicant, and the white person got the job because of their skin color.
This is the majority of how discrimination has worked, and it has worked for the benefit of whites, many who have circumvented the rules and twisted applicant numbers in order to avoid having to follow the LAW.
This is why I say that certain laws need to be enforced stronger.
We will not work with the small number technique. You people are saying that the policy must end because it discriminates unfairly against whites as a whole, not one or two examples of where some whites didn't get a job because the company they applied to had been refusing to hire minorities and was forced to do so because they were breaking the law. So the evidence to support the claim must prove that this law hurts whites as a whole.
It's just that simple.
I think the problem you have is that you don't understand where most of us are coming from on this subject. You seem to think we don't like Affirmative Action because it hurts whites as a race, this could not be further from the truth. Affirmative Action is bad because it supports discrimination on the basis of race and that is what is bad about it.
If you are going to say that discrimination the way it has occurred in the history of the US ,or anywhere else in the world for that matter, is wrong. Then how can you try and fix the problem by discriminating against another group of people?
The simple fact is that if we are going to fix the problems of discrimination we have to judge every person as an individual, race can not play a role. We need laws to assure that this is what takes place, and we need to punish those that continue to discriminate. What we don't need are quotas that force people to hire minorities in a misguided attempt to make up for past wrongs.
It is as simple as that.
It is really simple isn't it. Any system that promotes the unqualified at the expense of the qualified is wrong. No matter what color they are.
JaFo & Lglady,
What part of you must provide evidence that shows that AA has created an equally adverse impact upon whites as continuing acts of discrimnination have upon blacks today do you not understand?
I am finished listening to a bunch of people who ignore that whites still discrimnate against blacks and are now being discriminated against by this policy.. Qoutas are illegal, therefore any mention of them kills any argument you have. If what you say is true, then the statistics will bear this out.
Opinion is not going to do it, and JaFo, I well understand what the conservative position is on this.
BTW, I guess you guys will be ready to get rid of preferences given to legacy, to children of alumni, to athletes and musicians, debators, and people who are from rural areas. I can keep on mentioning preferences, what about preferences given to veterans? I mean veterans get points for jobs and preferences and can get hired over someone more qualified just because they are a vet.
You people are against preferences right? Or is it fine as long as the preference just does not include race, therefore the majority of the preferences that white men get can continue rising.
Now is the time to put your facts where your mouses are. I see the number of responses have decreased drastically in this forum as opposed to te one on Rev. Jackson. That's because it's easy to attack and name call, but it seems to be very difficult for some of you to find facts to support your namecalling.
Now this may anger a few of you, but I am not the one who has to look in the mirror every morning and face the fact that I am believing a lie. And that's exactly what it is unless you can find evidence that supports your assertion that a majoity of white people are being discriminated against by AA. 3 people at the University of Michigan does not this case make.
Approximately 50,000 students attend the University of Michigan, the majority of them are white. Where is the disparate impact against whites by this policy even at the University of Michiogan?
It doesn't exist is the answer. And that is what you will discover if you are brave enough to examine the question I posed to you.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Satan
01-16-2003, 02:01 PM
lgllady, such talk of 'qualification' (or lack thereof) only serves to cloud the issue (much to the delight of those who support AA), especially since you seem to be implying that minorities are usually the 'unqualified'.
AA does not necessarily promote the unqualified at the expense of the qualified. It certainly often forces the choice of one of two equally qualified individuals over the other based solely upon skin pigmentation.
Therein lies the simplicity. Minorities have for generations insisted that they be considered by all measuring-sticks except skin-color, and rightfully so. It is hypocrisy of the highest degree for them now to insist that skin-color be the measuring-stick.
Satan
01-16-2003, 02:10 PM
You people are against preferences right? Or is it fine as long as the preference just does not include race therefore the majority of the preferences that white men get can continue rising.
And YOU are against preferences, unless of course those preferences DO include race, so as to give you advantage over white men.
I for one believe that you quite understand the hypocrisy in this, and that you are just grinning your ass off over the 'revenge' aspect, like a jackass eating briars.
JaFo & Lglady,
What part of you must provide evidence that shows that AA has created an equally adverse impact upon whites as continuing acts of discrimnination have upon blacks today do you not understand?
Why must we provide evidence that AA discriminates against whites as a whole. I never claimed that it did, in fact the only person I've seen make a statement about this is you.
I am finished listening to a bunch of people who ignore that whites still discrimnate against blacks and are now being discriminated against by this policy.. Qoutas are illegal, therefore any mention of them kills any argument you have. If what you say is true, then the statistics will bear this out.
Opinion is not going to do it, and JaFo, I well understand what the conservative position is on this.
BTW, I guess you guys will be ready to get rid of preferences given to legacy, to children of alumni, to athletes and musicians, debators, and people who are from rural areas. I can keep on mentioning preferences, what about preferences given to veterans? I mean veterans get points for jobs and preferences and can get hired over someone more qualified just because they are a vet.
All of the preferences you mention with the exception of the people from rural areas are based upon the actions of the people who are applying. Atheletes have demonstrated their athletic skills and their dedication to a sport, debators have shown academic and speaking skills, musicians have shown that they can dedicate and master a musical instrument. Veterans get a preference because they gave in service to this country. Even the children of alumni have earned a preference because their parents supported the school in the past. Race on the other hand demonstrates nothing about the applicant except skin color, hardly a reason to give anyone extra points.
You people are against preferences right? Or is it fine as long as the preference just does not include race, therefore the majority of the preferences that white men get can continue rising.
Now is the time to put your facts where your mouses are. I see the number of responses have decreased drastically in this forum as opposed to te one on Rev. Jackson. That's because it's easy to attack and name call, but it seems to be very difficult for some of you to find facts to support your namecalling.
Now this may anger a few of you, but I am not the one who has to look in the mirror every morning and face the fact that I am believing a lie. And that's exactly what it is unless you can find evidence that supports your assertion that a majoity of white people are being discriminated against by AA. 3 people at the University of Michigan does not this case make.
Approximately 50,000 students attend the University of Michigan, the majority of them are white. Where is the disparate impact against whites by this policy even at the University of Michiogan?
It doesn't exist is the answer. And that is what you will discover if you are brave enough to examine the question I posed to you.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Once again you are the one talking about disparate impact. All I am saying is that racial discrimination is bad no matter who is doing or why.
You need to stop insisting on forcing people to accept your narrow view and you need to pose questions that really address the issues. For instance, do racial preferences actually help those they are supposed to help, or are they a hindrance in the long run?
And YOU are against preferences, unless of course those preferences DO include race, so as to give you advantage over white men.
Sky, you actually believe that the playing feild is level now. don't you?
I have asked for evidence to show support for your position. I have got nothing but a bunch of rhetoric. Revenge has got nothing to do with any of this Sky. I look at the numbers that contrast what is going on racially, and I see that whites have all the advantages.
Your rhetoric of unbelievably niaive comments is not what I have asked for. I said that I want to see numbers that show where AA has created a disparate impact upon the entire white race that is equal to or greater than the discrimination blacks face today.
I mean the policy has been in effect since 1964 or so, this means that there is a 39 year documentation that should show that this policy has created a decrease in income earned by whites, decreases in educational attainment, increases in poverty, unemployment and business start ups. These decreases should be dramatic, for example whites would go from less than 10 percent poverty to 33 percent or greater. Whites would go from less than 3 percent unemployment to more than 10 percent. The median income for whites woud be reduced by almost 50 percent. I mean this is what would be shown if AA truly discriminated against white people and created an advantage for blacks.
You won't find information which shows any sch dramatic decreases. That's my assertion. I have challenged you guys to find information that proves me wrong. After all it should be easy to do this, because I am just a slave to the message of the great race hustlers and poverty pimps Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton.
guido
01-16-2003, 02:47 PM
JaFo & Lglady,
What part of you must provide evidence that shows that AA has created an equally adverse impact upon whites as continuing acts of discrimnination have upon blacks today do you not understand?
I am finished listening to a bunch of people who ignore that whites still discrimnate against blacks and are now being discriminated against by this policy.. Qoutas are illegal, therefore any mention of them kills any argument you have. If what you say is true, then the statistics will bear this out.
Opinion is not going to do it, and JaFo, I well understand what the conservative position is on this.
BTW, I guess you guys will be ready to get rid of preferences given to legacy, to children of alumni, to athletes and musicians, debators, and people who are from rural areas. I can keep on mentioning preferences, what about preferences given to veterans? I mean veterans get points for jobs and preferences and can get hired over someone more qualified just because they are a vet.
You people are against preferences right? Or is it fine as long as the preference just does not include race, therefore the majority of the preferences that white men get can continue rising.
Now is the time to put your facts where your mouses are. I see the number of responses have decreased drastically in this forum as opposed to te one on Rev. Jackson. That's because it's easy to attack and name call, but it seems to be very difficult for some of you to find facts to support your namecalling.
Now this may anger a few of you, but I am not the one who has to look in the mirror every morning and face the fact that I am believing a lie. And that's exactly what it is unless you can find evidence that supports your assertion that a majoity of white people are being discriminated against by AA. 3 people at the University of Michigan does not this case make.
Approximately 50,000 students attend the University of Michigan, the majority of them are white. Where is the disparate impact against whites by this policy even at the University of Michiogan?
It doesn't exist is the answer. And that is what you will discover if you are brave enough to examine the question I posed to you.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
You don't get it, do you? To enforce a law discriminating against ANY person, whether it be race, veterens, athletes et al, is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter in the slightest if the ratios are equal between black/white. The difference here, is that while blacks are certainly discriminated against in the work place, there is no federal law forcing that issue. There IS in the case of whites, and government has no business making such laws.
Blacks are discriminated against by racist idiots. Whites are being discriminated against because the federal government forces them to be.
Remove AA, and let the courts hear discrimination charges on a case by case basis.
To all,
When I first posted this topic up here , I described the parameters of what this topic was and how it was goingto be discussed. I know the position of conservative whites on this issue. I want to see evidence that supports your statments that AA unfairly discriminates against whites.
It's not about saying that we want our skin color to be used as a way of giving us an advantage, that's a bogus argument considering the fact that whites still today get the majority of everything, and a lot of times this is based just upon the color of their skin.
It's not about government sponsored racism, because the governmet has and continues to, sponsor racism against blacks at every level.
My view is not narrow, most of yours are. The reality YOU must face is whether or not this law truly creates the type of impact on whites that discrimination based upon race truly does upon those being discrimiinated against.
It's not about whether or not this policy helps those its intended to help. Thats conservative bullshit rhetoric based upon the agenda of the right wing. It's all about what I mentioned above. You are the ones stating that this policy is unfairly discriminating against whites.
So in order to figure out if this is true, we must use the legal guidelines courts use to figure this out.
If you are unwilling to do so, accept the fact that you are wrong and move on. Other than that, you must proove that AA has created a disparate impact upon whites since it's inception that is equal to or greater than the impact of continuing discrimination faced by blacks.
Those are the rules of this discussion.
JaFo & Lglady,
What part of you must provide evidence that shows that AA has created an equally adverse impact upon whites as continuing acts of discrimnination have upon blacks today do you not understand?
As for me, I don't understand the "must" part, since no one here has made such an assertion; therefore I submit that anyone's obligation to prove it is rather less compelling than your obligation to produce evidence that anyone besides you has said it. ;)
BTW, I guess you guys will be ready to get rid of preferences given to legacy, to children of alumni, to athletes and musicians, debators, and people who are from rural areas. I can keep on mentioning preferences, what about preferences given to veterans? I mean veterans get points for jobs and preferences and can get hired over someone more qualified just because they are a vet.
If you are determined to prove yourself an idiot, you are certainly on the right track. Veterans have done something to merit extra consideration. Being non-white is hardly the equivalent of serving one's country in and of itself.[/quote]
It's not about whether or not this policy helps those its intended to help.
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Case closed.:)
Satan
01-16-2003, 04:13 PM
Sky, you actually believe that the playing feild is level now. don't you?
The playing field will never be level until we judge each other solely by our merits rather than by the color(s) of our skin.
I have asked for evidence to show support for your position.
Which position do you require evidence for? The position that all men are created equal? Or the position that skin color should never be a determing factor when assessing the worth of a man?
I have got nothing but a bunch of rhetoric.
Please. Man, your middle NAME is 'Rhetoric'. You post whole PAGES of irrelevant shit designed to take every argument off on every possible tangent, leading me to believe that you argue with me just for the sake of argument. You bob and weave like a pro halfback, and change the subject as often as the town gossip.
Either we promote one race over another, or we don't. You can't shout that it's 'racist' to hire a white man just because he's white, but it's NOT racist to hire a black man just because he's black. (Well, you can, and do, but that doesn't make it RIGHT.)
Damn, how much simpler could I possibly make it for you? I guess the real question is, how much more complicated could you possibly make the defense of it? ::)
Meshuga Mikey
01-16-2003, 04:51 PM
every[/i] argument off on every possible tangent, leading me to believe that you argue with me just for the sake of argument. You bob and weave like a pro halfback, and change the subject as often as the town gossip.
It would indeed appear that this Illigitimate son of Bojangles has become rather proficient at preforming the soft shoe,,..and.Tap Dancing,... while simultaneously talkin all out the side of his dayum neck !!! THE CASE WOULD INDEED BE CLOSED..IF HE WOULD ALLOW your words entry into the darken inner sanctum of his tiny cogntive cave. but that would require a willingness that he has not yet evidenced~!!!!!!
The playing field will never be level until we judge each other solely by our merits rather than by the color(s) of our skin.
So I'm the King of Rhetoric.
I'm fine with judgement only on our merits, but this does not happen. And it happens way too many times to the deteriment of blacks, not whites.
Either we promote one race over another, or we don't. You can't shout that it's 'racist' to hire a white man just because he's white, but it's NOT racist to hire a black man just because he's black. (Well, you can, and do, but that doesn't make it RIGHT.)
Damn, how much simpler could I possibly make it for you? I guess the real question is, how much more complicated could you possibly make the defense of it?
I have made it as simple as possible for YOU, but it seems that none of you want to take the simple path.
I have said that the small number technique is not acceptable, yet you continue using it. When I speak on racial discrimination, I have a (minimum)200 year history of actions, and a continued pattern of this behavior by the initial perpetrators.
The reason AA was legislated in the first place was that radcial discrinmination had adversely impacted entire populations of people living in this nation. If there had been only 5 or 10 instances, or if less than 10 percent of the population would have been impacted by previous policy, the argument of racial discrimnation would have never been an issue.
And you are trying to argue your case saying that a small number of whites, a minority within that group, are being impacted negatively by AA. Civil Rights laws were enacted because blacks and hispapnics were almost 100 percent negatively impacted by the policiies of Jim Crow.
You can talk about individual v. individual if you so desire, but groups are nothing more than a collection of individuals.
So I asked you guys to find evidence to support that whites are being negatively impacted as a whole by the policy of AA, because if the policy is eliminated it will not be eliminated on a case by case basis. It will be eliminated from the nation for the whole. So when you talk about a policy that will have an impact on 270 million people, you cannot defend any elimination of that same policy citing examples which use 2 or 3 people here and there. And that's exactly what you guys are doing.
Certainly I am not for promoting any race except for the human race. Yet, I am for making you understand what you are talking about. Whites are and have been the main acceptor of preferences. This nation was built and maintains a foundation of white male preference.
That's just the plain and simple truth.
arod,
AA has not hurt anyone it was intended to help. So that's not the issue. But people like you will make it one with your consistent ability to demagogue.
The issue here is simple, If AA discriminates against whites unfairly, the numbers and indicators should be out there to prove this point correctly. What I am doing is saying, Hey if you find the numbers to proove what you say is true, I will abandon my argument, and change my opinion on the issue. I will say that AA is unfair and that blacks should stop playing the victim game with this issue.
But if not, then you and others will have to fess up and recognize that what your leaders are telling you is wrong, and what they are doing is playing the real race card.
Yet no one here wants to take the risk. All I am basically getting is that it's simply wrong because I say so.
Sky & Arod,
Don't be like Mikey who said he could provide numerous scams and has done nothing but post up pictures and attempts to insult.
I have made this challenge to conservatives since nearly the first time I posted here in 1995, yet I have never recieved an answer. All I ever get is just how wrong racial discrimination is, and never an admittance that whites have been the continued beneficiary of race based preferences.
No, all I ever get is how unfair all this is to whites.
Ed Edwards
01-16-2003, 06:54 PM
those who support AA, are for the most part, a bunch of DRUNKS~
I'll drink to that :)
Meshuga Mikey
01-16-2003, 06:56 PM
those who support AA, are for the most part, a bunch of DRUNKS~
I'll drink to that :)
best be drinkin in moderation N not be tendifyun towards dunkeness and Scuse me but My bible is at home ,...But I trust you remember the CONCEPT therein~and hereon!!!
What I am doing is saying, Hey if you find the numbers to proove what you say is true, I will abandon my argument, and change my opinion on the issue.
I've asked you this at least twice now: what assertion have I made that these "numbers" of yours have relevance to?
And make that a DIRECT QUOTE OF MINE WITH LINK, if you please.
arod,
It's this simple, if you oppose AA, then find supportng evidence that shows where whites are being discriminated against by this policy to the deteriment of the entire population of white people. I want to see evidence that shows where AA has adversely impacted the entire population of white people. If you oppose this policy, then you should have about 39 years worth of statistics that show drastic declines in the standard of living of white people in America.
I hope that I have made myself clear on this issue.
Ed,
I hope that you and yours had a great holiday season.
It's good to see that you are still around.
Meshuga Mikey
01-17-2003, 09:21 AM
THIS IS NOT SOUTH AFRICA FOO~!!!
http://people.delphiforums.com/artcruncher/epap2A.gif
arod,
It's this simple, if you oppose AA, then find supportng evidence that shows where whites are being discriminated against by this policy to the deteriment of the entire population of white people. I want to see evidence that shows where AA has adversely impacted the entire population of white people. If you oppose this policy, then you should have about 39 years worth of statistics that show drastic declines in the standard of living of white people in America.
I am not one of those here who have a dogmatic opinion on this on way or the other, and I don't intend to debate this too much. However, absence of the evidence you demand is not relevant, because AA may well be hurting everybody equally. For instance, if a comany hires on the basis of race rather than merit, it cannot possibly reach its full potential, which means it cannot expand and create jobs. That's everyone's loss.[/quote]
Meshuga Mikey
01-17-2003, 12:40 PM
arod,
It's this simple, if you oppose AA, then find supportng evidence that shows where whites are being discriminated against by this policy to the deteriment of the entire population of white people. I want to see evidence that shows where AA has adversely impacted the entire population of white people. If you oppose this policy, then you should have about 39 years worth of statistics that show drastic declines in the standard of living of white people in America.
I am not one of those here who have a dogmatic opinion on this on way or the other, and I don't intend to debate this too much. However, absence of the evidence you demand is not relevant, because AA may well be hurting everybody equally. For instance, if a comany hires on the basis of race rather than merit, it cannot possibly reach its full potential, which means it cannot expand and create jobs. That's everyone's loss.
[/quote]
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS AT ITS BASE, A TOTALITARIAN CONTROL MECHANISM, which has NOW outgrown its original box and is helping to destroy the fabric of the society~!!
TELL THIS SELF ABSORBED IYAM PUKE TO KEEP IT SIMPLE~!!!
arod,
Companies have been hiring based upon race and not merit since this nation was "founded." The reason AA was implemented is because there was a ton of evidence that showed where racial discrimination by whites impacted entire groups of people who were not white. Today whites are saying tha this policy impacts them as a whole negatively and hurts the entire nation. Therefore proof must be tendered that shows this is the case. Therefore evidence and proof is very relevant. Abscence of it only shows that the arguments against it are invalid, simply because there is no evidence that shows where this policy is hurting the entire white community. Therefore no arguments exist to support the claims made against the policy.
Companies continue practicing racial exclusion. If not for AA, then there would have been none of the advances which make people like you think that everything is cool and that racial discrimination is a thing of the past. Well except for blacks who practice it all the time on white folks, right.
You cannot argue a point without having proof. There is no proof that this policy hurts the entire nation. All we have is a bunch of white men who are whining because they THINK, not KNOW, that unqualified blacks or other minorities are taking away the jobs white men are ENTITLED to.
I KNOW that any argument against AA has no MERIT.
Never have any of you ever conceded that for more than 200 years since this nation was "founded" that qualified blacks or other minorities have been excluded from jobs, college or anything else while a lesser qualified white man has been given opportunity.
But this is not considered racial preferences, it is considered working hard and achieving.
When you people can admit to that, and admit that it still continues, you will see that you are arguing a bogus point, and that you are the ones trying to divide this nation.
Michelle,
Have you ever noticed that I don't pay you any attention? Want to know why?
Because I already know that you are a stupid SOB. You said that Jackson had committed numerous scams, but like the rest of the conservatives, when asked to show evidence, you can't. Therefore I will not waste my time debating another stone cold mindless lemming.
Any and all lurkers
This topic has been up about a week. Yet I have not seen one person who opposes AA provide any evidence that supports the claim that this policy has a disparate impact upon the entire populatuion of white people.
I have answered posts directed to me , but now I will stop. I will only reply to intelligent responses that are backed with evidence that shows how AA has negatively impacted the entire white population of this country.
What you believe, your opinion, and repeated conservative catch phrases will not do.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
guido
01-17-2003, 02:37 PM
To all,
When I first posted this topic up here , I described the parameters of what this topic was and how it was goingto be discussed. I know the position of conservative whites on this issue. I want to see evidence that supports your statments that AA unfairly discriminates against whites.
Again, you don't understand. You say you understand the conservative white position, but you don't demonstrate that you do.
You've as much as admitted that AA DOES in fact, discriminate against whites. Your position seems to be that it doesn't discriminate against whites anywhere near as much compared to the discrimination blacks face.
1. I agree
2. It doesn't matter.
It's still discrimination, and what makes it worse is that it is government enforced discrimination.
guido,
Unacceptable answers.
It's this simple, you must show that whites are just as negatively impacted by AA as blacks and other minorities are by continued acts of discrimination against them.
You must show that AA has a disparate impact upon the ENTIRE white community.
Making a argument based upon less than 1 percent of all whites does not a case of discrimination make, especially when you are talking about whole groups of people and not individual cases.
You guys are saying that AA hurts whites as a whole, therefore the negative impact of the policy must be proven to affect the whole white population.
You talk about merit, well the merits of your argument can only be based upon evidence that supports any claim of whites being discrimnnated against. If this is true, then you should have 39 years worth of evidence that supports this.
Now you can either find the evidence or admit that there is no such evidence and whites as a community have not been adversely impacted by this policy.
Why is it so difficult for you guys to understand this?
You guys have one week to provide evidence that supports your position.
guido
01-17-2003, 04:06 PM
The answer is as plain as the nose on your face. You just reject it, because it doesn't support your agenda.
You don't understand that it doesn't matter who is discriminated against more. What matters is that all discrimination is unfair, but more importantly, our government has a responsibility to practice what it preaches. The left waves banners of discrimination in the faces of white people, and then, wants to perpetuate discrimination of another form through legislation. Two wrongs don't make a right no matter which side of the equation you're on.
You're either for discrimination, or against it, and you're obviously for it. I'm against it, in every form it takes.
To all,
When I first posted this topic up here , I described the parameters of what this topic was and how it was goingto be discussed. I know the position of conservative whites on this issue. I want to see evidence that supports your statments that AA unfairly discriminates against whites.
It's not about saying that we want our skin color to be used as a way of giving us an advantage, that's a bogus argument considering the fact that whites still today get the majority of everything, and a lot of times this is based just upon the color of their skin.
It's not about government sponsored racism, because the governmet has and continues to, sponsor racism against blacks at every level.
My view is not narrow, most of yours are. The reality YOU must face is whether or not this law truly creates the type of impact on whites that discrimination based upon race truly does upon those being discrimiinated against.
It's not about whether or not this policy helps those its intended to help. Thats conservative bullshit rhetoric based upon the agenda of the right wing. It's all about what I mentioned above. You are the ones stating that this policy is unfairly discriminating against whites.
So in order to figure out if this is true, we must use the legal guidelines courts use to figure this out.
If you are unwilling to do so, accept the fact that you are wrong and move on. Other than that, you must proove that AA has created a disparate impact upon whites since it's inception that is equal to or greater than the impact of continuing discrimination faced by blacks.
Those are the rules of this discussion.
Those are the rules huh? Well pardon me while I speak up and tell you what to do wth your rules.
It has already been established that your question is impossible to answer in anything but the affirmative (in case your having trouble with that it means that it is true). It has to be correct because there is no mathematical way for affirmative discrimination of a minority to affect the majority of the majority group. In other words your question is faulty.
Now if you please I would like you to answer my question.
How can discrimination fix the problem of discrimination? If it is bad to do it to a person of one color why is it ok to do it to another? Please don't tell me about the history of this country, I'm very farmiliar with it and all of the the injustices that occurred.
Retribution is not enough a good enough answer, you have to show how it will fix the problem. If you can't answer my question it shows your that you have nothing to support your position, them's the rules.
BTW shouldn't you have to prove that discrimination affects more than 50% of Blacks?
JaFo,
If my question is faulty then so is the premise of AA discriminating against white people as an entire race.
You answered the question yourself, and here it is:
It has to be correct because there is no mathematical way for affirmative discrimination of a minority to affect the majority of the majority group.
You state that there can be no mathematical way that affirmative discrimnation of a minority of a majority group can affect the majority of a majority group.
How can you guys sit on your asses and say that this policy discriminates against white people, equate this with racial discrimnation against blacks that affect 100 percent of the black population, when what you call discriimination affects less than 1 percent of the white population. And some whites have the nerve to call this a civil rights battle.
If less than 1 percent of all blacks people stated that they were being discriminated against by a policy and yet 99 percent of all blacks would say that no, we have not been affected by that policy, the cries of discrimination against blacks would be laughed at.
Yet less than 1 percent of all white people are affected by AA, and yet you people are trying to state that this policy is unfair to every single white person living in America today.
Yet you cannot see how this is playing the race card.
guido,
To state that a person is for discrimiation when the say that they know that AA needs to continue is bullshit. Especially given the circumstances that discrinination still is going on today based upon race and that the majority of who it affects are black people.
Anyone else,
Now you all will tell me that you are against any kind of racial discrimination. Yet there was not one example that cited any possibility that there may be cases where unqualified whites would gain an advantage based upon race at any time.
Never one mention of how blacks have been passed over millions of times for admissions, jobs, and promotions on jobs for a white person who was less qualified.
It was like the thought never entered your mind that this could be the case too.
All references to AA was that it is so unfair that unqalified blacks get something extra at the expense of whites who are more qualified.
Or the old It hurts those it's intended to help, and blacks would have a stigma because everyone else would be thinking that they ware inferior because they could not make it if not for AA.
Never was the opposite position even considered by anyone of you here.
If you were truly for a non discriminatory nation, then you would have the ability to admit that this has happened and it's not some made up fiction by Jesse Jackson or Rev. Sharpton.
guido
01-17-2003, 06:04 PM
guido,
To state that a person is for discrimiation when the say that they know that AA needs to continue is bullshit. Especially given the circumstances that discrinination still is going on today based upon race and that the majority of who it affects are black people.
No, it's not.
You've already admitted that AA is discriminating to a percentage of whites, albeit a small percentage. It's still discrimination, and YOU support it. Please point out the BS. Again, you're either for it, or against it. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.
arod,
Companies have been hiring based upon race and not merit since this nation was "founded."
So do you figure the country would have been better off if those companies had hired based on merit? :)
The reason AA was implemented is because there was a ton of evidence that showed where racial discrimination by whites impacted entire groups of people who were not white. Today whites are saying tha this policy impacts them as a whole negatively and hurts the entire nation. Therefore proof must be tendered that shows this is the case. Therefore evidence and proof is very relevant. Abscence of it only shows that the arguments against it are invalid, simply because there is no evidence that shows where this policy is hurting the entire white community. Therefore no arguments exist to support the claims made against the policy.
The problem of proving damages due to AA is pretty much the same as proving damages done to blacks as a result of slavery - but I doubt that will keep you from arguing in favor of reparations nonetheless. ;)
Companies continue practicing racial exclusion. If not for AA, then there would have been none of the advances which make people like you think that everything is cool and that racial discrimination is a thing of the past.
ROFL!!! :D
After the emancipation, blacks made plenty of progress, even with the odds stacked against them, long before JJ was a gleam in his father's eye - because many of them had an intuitive understanding of what Jesse Peterson talks about, even if they didn't have the words to express it. By contrast, since the '64 civil rights act, the black community has been increasingly demoralized, as anyone with a grain of honesty in them can plainly see.
Well except for blacks who practice it all the time on white folks, right.
You cannot argue a point without having proof.
I dunno. You sure have given it the old college try with regard to the culpability of the black despots in South Africa for their atrocities.
There is no proof that this policy hurts the entire nation. All we have is a bunch of white men who are whining because they THINK, not KNOW, that unqualified blacks or other minorities are taking away the jobs white men are ENTITLED to.
No one here has claimed entitlement to anything except you.
I KNOW that any argument against AA has no MERIT.
Never have any of you ever conceded that for more than 200 years since this nation was "founded" that qualified blacks or other minorities have been excluded from jobs, college or anything else while a lesser qualified white man has been given opportunity.
There is no need to concede it since I never said anything to the contrary.[/quote]
Flyrod
01-17-2003, 06:39 PM
guido,
To state that a person is for discrimiation when the say that they know that AA needs to continue is bullshit. Especially given the circumstances that discrinination still is going on today based upon race and that the majority of who it affects are black people.
No, it's not.
You've already admitted that AA is discriminating to a percentage of whites, albeit a small percentage. It's still discrimination, and YOU support it. Please point out the BS. Again, you're either for it, or against it. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.
Any way you slice it, AA is white male reverse discrimination, white male racial profiling, black goals/quotas or whatever!!!!! This is federal government mandated BS!!!!! This reparations BS is even worse and completely out of the question!!! There is probably ugly, fat, homo , nepotisim, etc. etc. discrimination anyway!!! Blacks have had their 35+ years of this BS!!! Screw it!!!!!! I honestly think that AA is a big part of this recession; ie. why work harder if you are a white male????????
guido,
Yes discrimination is unfiar. But for it to be discrimination it has to adversely affect a large number o fthe population thats claiming a policy discrimnates against them and should be ended. The only reason AA was implemented in the first palce awas that racial discrimination affected 99.9999 pecent of the black population in America. Not a small number.
Again none of you want to address the issue of the continued discrimnnation I face each day. This discrimination still negatively impacts a majority of blacks, not a small number, or a minority of us.
Until you undestand that whites get the majority of race based preferences and not claim that everything is equal and that now blacks have the advantage because of a government policy, when we can find thousands of government policies and college admission criteria that provide preferences for whites.
But these FACTS will be ignored, and you wil continue telling me how unfair this is to you guys, while I still gotta face discrimnation in finding employment, the pay I get when I get employed, the chances of my moving up based upon the MERIT of the work I do, and all the things you guys just take for granted.
I still gotta work twice as hard as any of you to get the equal respect I am due on a job. I still have to show twice as many qualfications as you do when we apply for the same job. Ain't too many "qualfied" whites getting turned down for employment so that unqualified blacks can get anything.
Your argument in this area is pure bullshit simply because unemployment rates show that whites continue to have the lowest rates of unemployment, while blacks have perhaps the highest. So unqualified blacks cannot be getting any advantages or preferences to the deteriment of whites. The numbers destroy this assertion whether you want to admit it or not.
AA in regards to admissions cannot be discriminatory against whites as a whole, because the majority of individuals entering college every year are white. At the University of Michigan out of more than 50,000 students, more than 50 percent of the admissions were given to whites. How can one utter racial discrimination when the majority of students in the institution admitted in the school are of the race that is crying about being discriminated against.
You stand behind a bogus argument. By the standard of law by which AA is judged, there has to be a history of an institutions underutilization of a certain group for discrimination to be proven. If that history is proven, the company or offending party must create a system that will allow the business to hire or train minorities so that the workforce resembles the population.
How can one say that this policy discrminates against whites when there is no evidence that supports such claims? How can one say that AA discriminates against whites when the majority of all economic indicators show that whites are NOT being hurt, nor negatively impacted as a population by this policy?
Because those who created this line of reasoning are playing the race card. You can whine all day claiming this is simply discrimination because you say it is, or you can buck up and find the evidence to support your position, or you can just be quiet and realize that you have no argument.
Arod, we will discuss South Africa on another section.
And yes the companies would have been better off if they would have hired based soley on merit. And the companies today would be better of if they hired soley based on merit too. But they don't and the majority of the race based preferences go to whites, specifically white males, and they get them whether or not they are more qualfied or not. They get it soley based upont he color of their skin. Yet you are trynig to tell me that race should never be an issue, and we agrree on that. Yet the majority of people who oppose this law in conservative forums make the argument based on the premise that in every instance AA is applies, unqualified minorities are getting prefenfces over qualified whites.
No one wants to discuss that for example in the University of Michigan case, a person got 20 points for being the son/daughter of alumni, or they got 20 points from being from the UP of Michigan, and that is populated mostly by whites.
Those who made the charges, and those who are defending in this case refuse to accept that these preferences existed also. They refuse to accept that these preferences went to whites, and that those who levelled the charges claim that they were turned down because some blacks had to be allowed in, yet not one of them will argue against the preference given to alumni, or to the white people living in the UP.
If you want to do away with prefences, fine i can agree to that. But that means we get rid of every single preference that exists. The preferences that has given white males their advantages today have not ended.
What does reparations have to do with AA arod?
Do not ignore the FACT that everyone else did get financial recompense for the damages that happened to them as well as legislation. Blacks have not. We were supposed to get 40 acres and a mule, but we got Jim Crow instead.
You should be for reparations fool. Think about it, just give black people about $50,000 each and then if we fuck that up and nothing changes we cannot complain about anything anyomore. if we got the money and nothing changed, then none one should ever blame the white man for anything ever again because the white man went as far as he could to help us.
Instead you guys want to come up with nice sounding excuses to oppose this, but if you thought with any type of logic.....
OBTW, just so that you don't forget, blacks pay taxes too. This has to be said, because you will understand that reparations would be a shared expense. If you were thinking logically.........
You can worship Jesse Peterson all you want to. For all I care you can turn your home into a Jesse Peterson shrine. But from where I sit, Peterson should do what he is doing in the community and keep his mouth shut. Because when he opens his mouth, he shows the world a lack of education, and a pathological need to disrespect Rev. Jackson and because he has done so, he gets to build his own little soapbox.
He's wrong arod, and that's all I'm going to say about the Rev. Jesse Peterson.
guido
01-18-2003, 05:22 PM
guido,
guido,
Yes discrimination is unfiar. But for it to be discrimination it has to adversely affect a large number o fthe population thats claiming a policy discrimnates against them and should be ended. The only reason AA was implemented in the first palce awas that racial discrimination affected 99.9999 pecent of the black population in America. Not a small number.
No, discrimination against a single person is unfair. It doesn't have to affect the entire population, or even a small majority.
Your mind is set so tight in the reparations mode that you can't see the forest for the trees. The fact is, that AA is causing the same problems that it was intended to solve.
Again, I agree that minorities are affected in higher percentages, but given time, and the continued leftward tilt of the workplace, it won't be long before the numbers you're asking for begin to pile up.
Your assertion that the greater number of blacks on unemployment is based solely on the notion that these blacks are willing to work. That is a notion, based on my experience, that is going to be tough for you to prove. If I had a dime for every black I've heard say "if they lay me off I'll sue them for discrimination" I could retire early.
Don't think for a minute that I'm lying about what I'm saying. The only lawsuit ever brought against our apprecenticeship committee was by a black for discrimination. This man, who was treated so unfairly, was late to work a documented 43 times in a year, and was a no show without calling 14 times. I know the case well, because my father was chairman of the apprentice board, and I went to high school with the kid that brought the suit. He was given ample warning before his termination, and still threatend to file suit if they terminated him. The apprenticeship won the ruling, but I have a feeling that you think that was discriminatory.
There have been far too many blacks that have made it on their own, in spite of whatever discrimination they met along the way, for me to accept your claims of unfair treatment, and way too many examples of minorities taking advantage of the system
Arod, we will discuss South Africa on another section.
And yes the companies would have been better off if they would have hired based soley on merit. And the companies today would be better of if they hired soley based on merit too. But they don't
And you don't want them to, obviously.
and the majority of the race based preferences go to whites, specifically white males, and they get them whether or not they are more qualfied or not. They get it soley based upont he color of their skin. Yet you are trynig to tell me that race should never be an issue, and we agrree on that.
No we don't, because YOU want to make it an issue.
Yet the majority of people who oppose this law in conservative forums make the argument based on the premise that in every instance AA is applies, unqualified minorities are getting prefenfces over qualified whites.
Really, this constant demand that I defend arguments I haven't made is getting to be a drag.
If you want to do away with prefences, fine i can agree to that. But that means we get rid of every single preference that exists.
No, because some preferences are merit based, as with veterans.
The preferences that has given white males their advantages today have not ended.
What does reparations have to do with AA arod?
Do not ignore the FACT that everyone else did get financial recompense for the damages that happened to them as well as legislation. Blacks have not. We were supposed to get 40 acres and a mule, but we got Jim Crow instead.
You should be for reparations fool. Think about it, just give black people about $50,000 each and then if we fuck that up and nothing changes we cannot complain about anything anyomore.
You really DO think I'm a fool. The kind of person who will blow that kind of money is EXACTLY the kind of person who will come back sniveling for more. What's more, from a legal POV, any reparations deal is a contract between black Americans and the rest of us. Are children able to enter into contracts? No; therefore, if any of them, having reached majority, decide that the settlement was unfair, it's not legally binding on them, and they are free to start the whole mess all over again. I'll bet Johnny Cochran has wet dreams over it.
if we got the money and nothing changed, then none one should ever blame the white man for anything ever again because the white man went as far as he could to help us.
No one should, huh? How artfully non-comittal. :)
Instead you guys want to come up with nice sounding excuses to oppose this, but if you thought with any type of logic.....
OBTW, just so that you don't forget, blacks pay taxes too. This has to be said, because you will understand that reparations would be a shared expense. If you were thinking logically.........
You get more laughably absurd by the paragraph. Black people will pay reparations to themselves?? :D[/quote]
guido,
Yes discrimination is unfiar. But for it to be discrimination it has to adversely affect a large number o fthe population thats claiming a policy discrimnates against them and should be ended. The only reason AA was implemented in the first palce awas that racial discrimination affected 99.9999 pecent of the black population in America. Not a small number.
Again none of you want to address the issue of the continued discrimnnation I face each day. This discrimination still negatively impacts a majority of blacks, not a small number, or a minority of us.
I've got some advice for you, stop your damn whining about being a victim all the time and maybe you won't feel so bad about your crappy life. I don't remember MLK constantly complaining about being a victim. Everybody has it rough and no one ever said life had to be fair. We are all guaranteed the equal opportunity to succeed, and our success should be based on our merits.
I still gotta work twice as hard as any of you to get the equal respect I am due on a job. I still have to show twice as many qualfications as you do when we apply for the same job. Ain't too many "qualfied" whites getting turned down for employment so that unqualified blacks can get anything.
I can't disscuss this with you anymore because I have no respect for you. You have no idea what life is like for any of the rest of us or what we have faced to get where we are. You use your color as as an excuse and you think people owe you something. Thank God most Black people aren't like you.
Jafo,
Do you think I give a goobly damn whether or not YOU have any respect for me?
I have accomplished probably twice as much as you have and have done so in a system that has decided that I should not be able to achieve anything.
And I have never let the color of my skin stand in the way of my progress. When I was denied promotion at a job a few years ago, I filed a lawsuit. And I was able to get at least one person removed from the job for practicing discrimmnination based upon race. And to get this done, I did not sit on my ass behind a computer crying about how blacks are being discrimninated against without proof.
And stop talking about Martin Luther King. You don't have one fuckling millaclue about what Dr. King was about. I am sick and tired of white people like you who will take one or two lines from Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech and not recognize anything else he said so that you can try to justify an unjustifiable position.
Arod,
If you want to dsicuss South Africa we can, but it will not be done in this section. And when I present what I do, you won't agree with me, all you will do is point the finger at what you call black despots in South Africa and you won't be able to put together the true cause and effect.
And Arod, this is a classic example of how you guys ignore what you do. Every single one of you have made race the issue relative to AA. The major premise is that this policy is discriminatory because it creates advantages based upon race and discriminates unfaily agains tpeople of the white RACE. If this is not making race an issue then what is?
I am not asking you to defend arguments you have not made. I am asking those who oppose the policy to present facts that support that AA should end beause it has created an adverse effect against whites as a population.
Guido,
Again, I agree that minorities are affected in higher percentages, but given time, and the continued leftward tilt of the workplace, it won't be long before the numbers you're asking for begin to pile up.
It's this simple, you have approximately 40 years worth of data that should show that AA has hurt white people in the same types of numbers that previous and continuing patterns of racial discrimnnation has hurt blacks and other colored minorities.
Your assertion that the greater number of blacks on unemployment is based solely on the notion that these blacks are willing to work. That is a notion, based on my experience, that is going to be tough for you to prove.
No I don't think so. I haven't fopund a large number so fblacks who are unwilling to work. Now if I was to say that it wouldbe difficult to find whgites who are willingto work, because despite what you believe there are lots of whites who do not want to work.
And regardles of the example of the one black person who was late 43 times, or whatever, there are equal numbers of whies who feel unfaily treated on jobs and scream that they gott passed over for a unqualified black person, yet when you look at their work records you see repeated coming to work drunk, records of tardiness just like the one you mention on the black person on your job. So to make a case using the small number technique is really quite stupid.
For your knowledge a study was done where resumes were sentout to prospective employeers. Some of the resumes had names onthem like Raasheed Jackson, or Twanika Bailey, while others had names like John Evans, or Linda Collins. Over 90 percent of the resumes that had the names Rasheed or Tamikla were sent letters back saying that htye had hired other candidates who fit the commpanies experience requirements better,. Over 90 percent of the Johns or Lindas got interviews.
Another study was done where a black male and a white male would go and applly for jobs. The majority of the places wuold allow the black guy to fill out the application, but after he was done, the would tell him that there were no openings or that they would call him back later. The white guy would come in after that, fill out the application and get an interview.
Unemployment rates for blacks have continued to be at least twice the rates for blacks than they have been for whites. This has been a historic pattern. So it's not because blacks are not willing to work.
Nice try Guido, but what you said was a tad bit on the racist side.
There have been far too many blacks that have made it on their own, in spite of whatever discrimination they met along the way, for me to accept your claims of unfair treatment, and way too many examples of minorities taking advantage of the system
First let me tell you that if any man or woman is late 43 times he deserves to get fired. But as usual you present the extreme ino der to defend a position that has no evidence to support it.
I don't know what you consider a large number, but when the people who look like me have historically and continue to have a rate of poverty that has averaged 3-5 times that of those looking like you, I cannot say that a lot of progress has been made. You don't have to accept anything I say, you do have to provide evidence that supports what YOU say. I know what I am saying is true. I have studied these things, and I have gotten paid to do work on these issues. You on the other hand probably have not, and therefore you are at a disadvantage when trying to argue against me with your opinion, when I have been taught that to validate your position, you need to provide facts and documentation to support your opinion.
While you see what you claim are too many minorities who take advantage of the system, you seem to ignore that far more whites do.
But that's par for the course when one is dealing witrh conservatives.
All
It's this simple, you want to say that any case of discrimination is wrong. Yet when I talk about discrimnation that happens to blacks on a daily basis, I have to be whinng or full of hate. When you guys present factless arguments that have absolutely NO supporting evidence and claim that AA discriminates I have to simply agree and that's it because you say so.
Not one of you have figured out yet that you are being pimped and that you have fallen for the race card.
Again the majority of the University of Michigan students admitted are white. To say that the University discriminatees against whites when this is the case, is incorrect. You cannot claim racial discrinnation when you receive the majority of all preferences, whatever "merit" based preferences there are and are hired as the majority of workers on jobs, and get the majority of all construction contracts, 8a included.
Sitting on your asses saying that it's discriminatroy because I feel it is doesn't cut it. If you are so much for ending discrimnation then look at the businesses in your communities and if they are rying about having to hire blacks becaue of Aa, trhen ask them why they waited until the year 2003 to being hiring minorities and ask them if it was determined that the company had a DOCUMENTED HISTORY of underutilizing minorities.
If they had a proven record of this, then it is their fault they refuse to follow the law, and it's not the government that made them break the law.
But it's fine for you white men to cry, babble, whine, sniffle, bitch and moan. Therein lies the double standard. You can bitch becaue it's your constiututional right to . Anyone else has to be called names and told by dumb asses that they aren't respected.
You need to know what you are talking about before you spout of opinions. I bet none of you know or understand the law completely as it relates to AA. I bet none of you know or understand what the guidelines are relative to how this law is carried out and how things are measured in order to bring about results. Instead you spout out the words your leaders tell you like what they say is the gospel truth.
I am confident that I can stand up with anyone, President Bush included and eat them alive on this issue. I bet I could stand up against Bush today and ask him just what I asked you and he will babble out the same nonsense you guys have.
And even as your president would not be able to quote the numbers that would give his argument MERIT, you people still would find ways to call me names and not believe that the argument you are trying to put forth has no MERIT whatsoever.
So far we've een at this 4-5 days and none of you can priovide evidence. You have tried telling me that I am either for or against discrimnation base upon whether or not I agree with your position only. I have now been told that JaFo does not respect me because he thinks I am a whiner. Arod obviously opposes this policy, yet he keeps saying thas the should not have to find evidence for statements he did not say, evn though the challenge was made to ALL who OPPOSE the law. And now a new line of reasoning comes into play, it doesn't matter if only one person gets discrimnated against it's wrong. Yet let only one black person say they are discriminated against and the American conservative namecalling championships are on.
39 years this policy has been in effect. 39 years the effects of this policy has ben documented. Yet you guys do not seem to be able to find evidence to support what you say.
Now if Rev.Jackson or Sharpton was to produce a claim of discrimnation and there was overwhelming evidence that what he says was not true, if 3 blacks claimed that they were unable to get admitted into a University because of their color,and it was proven that the University had a black population that was 12 percent or better, then all of you would scream bogus, and that here is another case of race hustling by Jackson or Sharpton.
No evidence has been presented yet. And there never will be. All you guys will do is contiunue spouting out your opinion, like if you keep on telling me your opinion on this that I will change my mind.
Well that just won't happen. Time is running out.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
truelies
01-19-2003, 06:14 AM
[quote author=IM
I don't know what you consider a large number, but when the people who look like me have historically and continue to have a rate of poverty that has averaged 3-5 times that of those looking like you, I cannot say that a lot of progress has been made. You don't have to accept anything I say, you do have to provide evidence that supports what YOU say. I know what I am saying is true. I have studied these things, and I have gotten paid to do work on these issues. You on the other hand probably have not, and therefore you are at a disadvantage when trying to argue against me with your opinion, when I have been taught that to validate your position, you need to provide facts and documentation to support your opinion.
[/quote]
If a person will do three simple things, the changes that their household will fall below the poverty line in any given year is less than 1%-
1) Finish High School, even if it is a crappy inner city school.
2) Get and keep a job, ANY job.
3) Get married BEFORE and stay married AFTER becoming a parent.
Three simple things that ANY person should be able to handle and yet as you say IM 3-5 times as high aproportion of Blacks are failures in this regard as Whites. Sounds to me like modern day Black American Culture has a FAR larger problem with encouraging behavior which should be strongly condemned than does the dominate White Culture.
There you have it. Getting ahead is quite simple.
Get an education. Get a job. Get married. Oh, and one other thing- quit whinning about how the MAN has fucked you over and go take a look in the mirror to find the REAL source of your failure.
Sound advice for America's loosers aka 'the base vote of the democrat party'.
guido
01-19-2003, 07:38 AM
IM,
My example is hardly extreme, in my experience, it's the norm
It cannot be racist, as I did not create the situation, I only explained it.
As for being typical; what's more typical to me, is when a black takes a
factual example, and calls it extreme and racist.
I'm not a racist. There are people here that would proudly express racism
as a part of their everyday ideology, but racism in any form makes my stomach turn.
I view AA as government enforced racism, and in no different measure than what blacks
have experienced over 250+ years. It's absurd of you to ask for numerical examples of
40 years of government enforced racism and compare it to 250+ years of discrimination faced by
blacks. Let's wait another 210 years of leftward coporate tilt, and see where were are at that time,
if you want a true comparison.
Observer
01-19-2003, 09:28 AM
IM,
I have avoided commenting on this topic up until now, but I have been reading what others have said, with interest. It is apparent from what you have written that you have a very narrow worldview of things, at least in regard to this particular subject.
I doubt very much that you can point out to me ANY segment of the population that has not, at some point in its history faced discrimination. Whether based on racial, ethnic, or religious grounds, it has happened to everybody. It was not so long ago that dogs were considered by many to be a higher life form than the Irish. Chinese were good for nothing more than physical labor and running laundries. Jews were a bunch of money grubbing Shylocks. Italians were ALL a bunch of thieving, murdering gangsters. We could go on and on, but it is not necessary. All of these groups were deprived opportunities for advancement and acceptance, not because of WHO they were, but because of WHAT they were. Should we advocate an affirmative action program for them? Don't bother bringing up the slavery issue, because the same holds true. Just about everybody has ancestors who were conquered and enslaved by SOMEBODY. So what?
I am an employer. I run a security and investigations company that maintains about 30 full time employees and a large number of adjuncts. We have worked hard and established a very good reputation in the industry. A major factor in our success has been careful selection of personnel. We deal with a number of high risk clients, some of whom are unfortunately, also rather high profile. These people depend on us to ensure their safety and the safety of their families and property. I mention this because it is pertinent to the discussion at hand.
When I look at prospective employees, I am interested in one thing and one thing only… Is this person the best available for the position I have to fill? That's all I care about. That is all any employer who is interested in making his business a success should care about. Whether that prospective employee is from a racial or ethnic group whose ancestors were persecuted by someone else, matters not in the least to me. My only interest is in the SPECIFIC PERSON with whom I am dealing. I am not interested in compensating for some historical injustice, real or imagined.
I am opposed to affirmative action. I believe each individual should advance or fall by the wayside based on his individual merits or lack thereof. People work to advance when they know the key to advancement is work. When people allow themselves to get stuck in an "entitlement" mindset, there is no incentive to get better. I think AA perpetuates that. It helps no one.
With regard to discrimination… I really do not think it is the business of the federal government to decide who an employer should or should not hire. If a man goes out and starts a business, who he chooses to work with him should be his decision and his alone. If he is smart, he will seek out the best people he can find, regardless of race or ethnicity. However, if he is narrow minded enough to want to only surround himself with people of a particular race, shouldn't that be his right? If a person owns an apartment building and only wants to rent to a particular group, shouldn't he be able to do so? It is after all, his building. My personal feeling is that people like that are depriving themselves and really limiting their potential for growth, but shouldn't they have the right to be stupid?
Before you ask, the ethnic breakdown of the top five leadership positions in my company is as follows:
1. Male - Flemish descent
2. Male - Hispanic
3. Female - Irish descent
4. Male - Tewa
5. Female - I don't know what her ancestry is… European
None of those people were selected for the positions they hold using race, sex or ethnicity as a factor. They are just very good at what they do. That is the only thing that makes sense to me.
No observer my view is not narrow. But I will say that everyuone in this forum who is casting opposing views are.
It's the same thing over and pover again. The government has no riight to do this or that. And then the I only look for merit and not race.
My position is this;
If there is a claim that a federal policy affects a group of people within the federal boundaires of this nation, there must be evidence that the policy in question affects the majority of the population who are complaining.
You guys are all yelling that this discrimnates, well this shows that you don't know what discriminatioon reallly is. When blacks were fighting against overt racial discrrimnation, EVERY institution in this nation had laws and policy that stopped progress for every black person in the country. Not 3 here or one there.
When AA was implemented, there was proven evidence that racial dicsrrimination adversely affected the entire population of blacks and other minorities in this country.
You people are arguing that AA is doing the same thing to whites today. yet there is no evidence to support what you are saying. This policy has been in effect for nearly 40 years, there should be some documentation that shows that AA has adversely impacted the entire population of whites in America.
You are a bad example, you own a business. Niow did you get a loan fto start this business? If you did, do you know the number of blacks who applied for that same loan? Probably not. Would you happen to know how many blacks who applied for the loan got it? How many whites who applied for that same loan got one?
Nobody is arguing that discrimination is not wrong. But when a case comes to court,and the President says what has gone on is unconstitional, evidence of the unconstitutionality must be proven.
When you examinie the student population at the University of Michigan, you see that the majority of the students are white, that in itself shows that AA did not have an adverse effect upon the majority of whites in that institution.
To continue arguing that AA gives something to somebody that no one else gets is a stupid argument. People make this assertion, yewt ignore that while they are white, they keep recieveing preferenes not based upion thier indivudal merit, but because of the color of their skin.
When whites stop getting preferences simply because ethey are white, we can stop polciers such as AA. This is nt a narrow view, it is statingthe truth. The narrow view isone that ignores that whites continue getting the majority of preferences and that they get them only because they were bornn white.
None of what you are saying meets the requirements of this section. And when you start talking about the Irish andItialians, you are right. They did get bashed by the English. However white it became an issue of letting darker skinned people into the overall community, allof them joined to gether to committ what would be considered acts of terror today.
So you can try justifying whatever your position is, but I have asked for you people to show evidence that supports your claims that AA has unfaily discriimnatred against white people and because it has, this policy has created an adverse impact upon the entire white community which is equal to or greater than what blacks and other colored minioorities faced during the times of overt discriimination and/or equal to what we face now with acts of continued discrimination.
Telling me that you do not discriminate is not the answer. I don't expect anyone to say that they do. I don't expect even the most ignorant, like Mikey to ever come out and say, hey I'm a racist, dude!
All
Nearly one week has gone by, and no evidence has yet to be posted.
I don't caare about the businesses you own. I don't care about the one black person who worked at your company who was late 43 times and tried to get promoted. I don['t care about any of that.
You are ssaying that this polcity is discrimimnatoory against whites. For that to be the casse youmust prove tha tthis polciy has adversely impacted the entire white race in a negative way.
Again you have about 39 years worth of documentation that should show drastic declines in white employment, income attained, educational levels, business start ups, meidan income, increases in poverty, and other economic and educational indicators.
When arguing that the system was discriminatory to them during the 1950's and 1960's, blacks had documentation that showed that the policies that discriminated against them adversely impacted the entire black population.
If there would have been a forum like this during that time, blacks could have cited laws, policies and statiistics that would substantiate what they were saying. I can do that today,and show you that blacks still get the short end, but of course I will be called all kinds of names because you guys do not want to accept the truth.
You guys cannot find one indicator, ONE, that supports what you are saying. But you want to continue aruging that your point is valid, even though you have nothing that supports you in saying so.
But I have the narrow view. HMMMMMM! 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
truelies
01-19-2003, 12:32 PM
A flat out LIE from IM the feftwing racebaiter-
"You guys are all yelling that this discrimnates, well this shows that you don't know what discriminatioon reallly is. When blacks were fighting against overt racial discrrimnation, EVERY institution in this nation had laws and policy that stopped progress for every black person in the country. Not 3 here or one there."
The Catholic Church just as one example is an institution in this Country but it did not have laws & policy which stopped progress for 'every black person in the country'.
The City of Sheridan, Wyoming as onother example is an institution in this Country but it did not have laws & policy which stopped progress for 'every black person in the country'.
Sweeping claims on your part which amount to a stupidly conceived and as you see EASILY refuted LIE.
If you want to see what is REALLY holding back Blacks in America- go take a look in the mirror- its you and other fools of the same rotten ilk.
Meshuga Mikey
01-19-2003, 12:48 PM
http://people.delphiforums.com/artcruncher/DancingFool.gifhttp://people.delphiforums.com/artcruncher/REPEROMATIONH2.jpg
YOU CAN TAP DANCE ALL OVER THE PLACE,..... BUT YOUR MESSAGE STILL SOUNDS LIKE NOTHIN BUT CLICKETTY CLACK--- JACK!@!
You guys cannot find one indicator, ONE, that supports what you are saying.
No, we WON'T find indicators that support what you SAY we said.
Observer
01-19-2003, 01:06 PM
IM,
You are missing the whole point of my post, as well as what has been said by several other forum members.
I don't think anyone is denying that discrimination has taken place in the past, or will continue to take place in the future. Of course it has. The point is that it doesn't matter. As long as people use that fact as an excuse for failure, they will continue to fail.
For what it is worth, I did not start my business with a loan. I started it with an idea and some very meager savings. For the first 14 months, I worked 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. I took a total of 4 days off during that period. I lived pretty much on sandwiches and Ramen noodles. For you to suggest that my starting a business deprived someone else of the opportunity to do so simply displays your "victim" mentality.
The problem with Affirmative Action is that it amounts to government dictated preferences for members of one racial group over members of another based SOLELY on race. This is the very thing you are complaining about with regard to white on black discrimination. Do you not see the hypocrisy there?
You are upset because no one is throwing statistics at you illustrating that AA has had an adverse on the TOTAL white population of this country. That's silly. No one is even bothering to look for statistics to support that view, because it is irrelevant how many people are adversely affected. If ONE person, regardless of race is discriminated against as a result of official US government policy, that's wrong.
I think it is safe to say that has been the consensus expressed by the posters here. Everyone here except YOU seems to believe that government discrimination is wrong. YOU, who claims to be the victim, are the one speaking out in support of discriminatory practices.
What's wrong with this picture?
Don't think you are alone in having experienced discrimination. I happen to live in a town where if you do not have an Hispanic surname and can't prove your ancestors have lived here for at least 400 years, you are barely tolerated. I experience racial discrimination and prejudice nearly every day. Yet, rather than whine about it, I have built a successful business DESPITE the fact that I have blonde hair and blue eyes, not BECAUSE of it.
Life isn't always fair. Get over it.
Meshuga Mikey
01-19-2003, 03:37 PM
Observer
IYAM is MISSING far more than your point~!!! MIA springs to mind immediatly~!!! :o
And stop talking about Martin Luther King. You don't have one fuckling millaclue about what Dr. King was about. I am sick and tired of white people like you who will take one or two lines from Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech and not recognize anything else he said so that you can try to justify an unjustifiable position.
That's another reason I don't respect you, you're a racist. You think you have to be Black to understand what discrimination or struggle feels like, you're wrong.
guido
01-19-2003, 05:36 PM
And stop talking about Martin Luther King. You don't have one fuckling millaclue about what Dr. King was about. I am sick and tired of white people like you who will take one or two lines from Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech and not recognize anything else he said so that you can try to justify an unjustifiable position.
That's another reason I don't respect you, you're a racist. You think you have to be Black to understand what discrimination or struggle feels like, you're wrong.
My guess is that he's one of those people that believe it's impossible for a black to be racist.
IM
Having read the debate here it seems that you have missed the point of people's objection to AA. MY objection to AA is not what it does to whites but what it does to blacks. The ripple effect from it affects the entire workplace and so whites are affected. It is not any sort of discrimination issues but the issue of competition, merit and achievement that are being debated here. YOU keep trying to bring it back to a discussion of discrimination.
You said it yourself that you had to be better and work harder because whites are given preference. If that is the case and you are better and more hard working then THAT would explain your success. If you were simply lazy or a defeatist who didn't strive to work harder and be better then you wouldn't be the best man for the job you currently hold. You are and your damn skin color has nothing to do with it. Your perserverance and work ethic have everything to do with it.
BTW, a very dear friend of mine filed a lawsuit against his supervisor for racial epithets and denying him a promotion which he had earned. My friend is white and his supervisor was black. You continue to act as though only white people are capable of that sort of behavior yet here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This supervisor was a racist piece of shit. I would not have put up with being called honky or whitebread for even one day. My friend put up with it for months until he was not put in for the promotion. Then he decided enough was enough.
Ignorance, racism and utter stupidity are universal. They are not a product of skin color.
JaFo and Guido,
Down with whitey! After all the white man was created by a mad scientist.
And if you think I believe that, you are just as stupid as the statement above.
I do not think that you have to be black to understand what discrimination is about. I have asked for you guys to present evidence that shows how AA is adversely impacting the entire white community so much that it requires elimination.
And JaFO I don't care whether or not you respect me, you don't know me. I don't know you either.
Observer,
I think that then, whites should not be using discrimination as an excuse for faliure, just as you are telling me that blacks should not be doing so.
I haven't missed your points. This is why I have continued to ask you guys to present evidence that shows by all legal parameters that AA has caused an adverse impact upon the entire white population in America.
And no the view is not irrelevant, because for AA to be implemented in the first place, thiere had to be evidence that supported the fact that a majority of blacks were being negatively affected by the policies of government and individuals. If only one person had been discrimnated against, or if a very small minority of people would not have gotten to eat in a restaurant because of their skin color, but that restaurant owner had allowed 99.9 percent of al blacks in his town to eat there, you could not state accurately that he is discriminating against people because they are black.
If a minority of blacks had been negatively affected by past and current policies of discrimination, whereas the majority of blacks in this nation are living good and are not affected, then there would be no merit to a argument by say, Jesse Jackson or whoever that the system is discriminating wrongly against blacks.
Yet this is the argument you guys are waging. If one person is discrimnated against, then it's wrong. Well that's true, yet if 100 positions open up in a town that has a black population of 3 percent, and the manager hires 97 whites and 3 blacks, then 1 white man says he was passed over because he was white, with the majority of workers being white, it is ridiculous to say that you are being discriminated against because of your race.
Finally to you Observer, I can say that I have been relatively successful in my life thus far. I help build a NFP that went from nothing to international recognition in a span of 2.5 years. Some of the policies we created are being excasmined by workld figurews, and Mandela had staff calling our office from 1997 unitl I left in mid 1998. That's despite a system which was built to make sure that I was considered as a secondary person, and initially people looking like me were not considered human beings.
So the namecalling just because I do not agree with you guys is juvenile. A successful and intelligent man such as yourself does not have to resort to calling someone a victim, or telling a person they have a victim mentality, especially when they do not really know what that person has accomplished in their life time.
Jesse Jackson has been saying that government discrimination is wrong. Yet he is called a poverty pimp, or race hustler. For me to say that I continue to face racial discrimnation, I get called a whiner, or a victim, and told that I should not be thinking like a victim. However when you guys are talking about being discrimnated against, you guys do not look at yourselves as whiners or having the victims mentality or that you are using this as an excuse for failure.
Truelies,
I think that you need to be more careful when you post up stuff that' ssupposed to refute my argument.
You state that Sheridan Wyoming, ior the Catholic Church were institutions that did not have policies that stopped progress for every black in this natioon. Yet it was written policy o f the Catholic Church during the 50's that blacks and hispanics sit in back of the church, and in fact there had to be separeate Catholic churches for blacks and whites. This affected all blacks who were catholic.
Sheridan Wyoming and other cities had laws preventing blacks from doing things after certain hours. I think that the south was not the only place where black codes existed. And these things would impact every black person who decided to visdit Sheridan.
Segregation and it's associated polcies, affected every black person, and it did not matter the institution, nor the location.
So the next time you want to post something up, study!
OAG,
Having read the debate here it seems that you have missed the point of people's objection to AA. MY objection to AA is not what it does to whites but what it does to blacks.
What does AA do to blacks OAG?
If your answer is the tired old it dminishes effort beause it gives them something for niothinig arument, I guess I'll have to go puke. A lot of whites have gotten where they are not by merit alone, but by preferences and entitlements they created.
Certainly your friend ran into an asshole. But I keep on getting the stories of how whites are bneing done worng so many times by blacks, yet not one of you want to recognisze that the reverse happens many more times.
To mention that, the American conservative namecalling chamoionships begin.
You want to talk about competition, merit and achievement, well that would be fine, if whites were truly willing to accept everyone based upon those criteria. None of you are, and the reason I say this is because of what I have read.
Every example you guys have posted is the one of the poor white person who is getting the shaft because a lesser qualfied black. Not once has the other side of the equation been mentioned by any of you. When I mention it, I get called all kinds of dumb ass names, like what I am saying does not exist.
I'm fine for non dscirimiation and allowing EVERYONE the chance to succeed based upon merit and competition. When this nation is ready for that, I'll go by a keg, and you're invited to come drink with me, if you drink beer that is.
I think that when you examine where blacks have been given chances basedupon merit, thehy have proven to be as good or beter than their white counterparts. All you have to do is look at the NFL, NBA, Baseball, Track and Field, and now Tiger Woods is doing it in golf.
Finally take a look at this statement.
Life isn't always fair. Get over it.
The observer is telling me that life isn't always fair and that I should deal with the cards given in regards to fighting discrimination. Yet this philosophy does not seem to apply to you guys.
All
As I expected, you guys have refused to show the numbers that would support your argument. You won't because you know they do not exist.
As a person who was wiser than I once told me, when you argume about soemthing, it is smart to study the facts on the issue that you are arguiong.
AA was implemented in order to remedy past discrimination against minorities by whites. If that discriimmation is still going on, and most of you admit it still is, then the policy must continue.
Secondly, in regard to college admissions and jobs, the Bakke case stated that race cannot be the only factor, but can be one of many factors. Therefore it is foolish to argue that in every case of AA, a white peron was unfairly discriminated against and a lesser qualified minority was given a shot. There are too many examples of evenly qualified people who were apllcaints for admissions and jobs, where a person was given the job because of tthey were black because the company that did so had underutilized minorities in it's hiring practices.
And that's something about AA none of you want to discuss, the reason why the companies or colleges in question apply AA as they do. The law states that if there is a history of underutilization of minorities, then a company must take steps to eradicate the problem. There must be evidence that blacks applied for jobs in that company before this can be done. And there are many companies that shred files of black applicants or will white out the numbers for the EEOC, then say that no blacks have applied and therefore they could not hire any.
I know because we took a major corporation to the courts. And in the testimonies of the administrative assistant of the National Department Manager ,and Assistant National Manager, were statements that he would white out black appllicant numbers in his EEOC report, then tell them that they had better not hire any more blacks than legally required.
Yet this is part of the issue that none of you want to touch. You act like it doesn't even happen. Well it does.
Finally, AA was passed so that colleges and the workplace reflected the total population. This was done because whites were getting all the preferences. Merit, competition and anything else you guys are talking about didn't matter. The law in it's essence is non discriminatory, and in fact GWB is wrong about it's constitutionality. It had to pass the constitutional test before it became a national policy.
This law allows that the majority of all college admissions, jobs, and construction contracts will go to whites, simply because whites are the majority of the nations population. This is why you won't find any negative impact upon whites by this policy. Your arguments about this discriminating is wrong, because even with "preferences", the majority of the preferences would go to whites because of the way this law was written.
The only reason why this issue is being structured the way it is, is simply because the right wing that controls this nation at this time are racists and they want to return to what they feel are old time American values. They have played the race card, and looking at what you guys have been posting they have done so successfully.
"You want to talk about competition, merit and achievement, well that would be fine, if whites were truly willing to accept everyone based upon those criteria. None of you are, and the reason I say this is because of what I have read."
You just don't see it. You are standing too close to the trees to see the forest.
Several of us have said we do nothing BUT accept people based on merit and ignore skin color. YOU claim that NONE of us is willing to do that. This is why people are jumping down your throat.
As for showing numbers and yada yada I could throw that back in your face too. You haven't demonstrated any real entitlement or preferential treatment that whites get. You have only given us your vague sense of the unfairness of everything and decided that none of us see the overwhelming injustices that all blacks suffer, ostensibly at the hands of all whites.
Yes, I do believe that competition is a good thing. I believe that people getting hired because they are the best possible person for the job is the only way a business can survive. I believe in people reaping the rewards for their own hard work. Go ahead and puke if you feel you must but damn it all giving someone something for nothing destroys them. It is harmful to them as individuals. It makes them weak and dependent. I am not an advocate for white people nor antagonistic toward black people. I am an advocate for all people everywhere and where I see a policy or program that is destroying a culture and raising a generation of defeatist, dependent, undereducated and unmotivated idiots it makes me angry. I'm not angry at the blacks who become victims of that setup but I'm not in denial of how it victimizes them either. I'm not running around trying to justify and maintain it based on some delusion that the world would be a better place if America hadn't been founded by and for white people 200 years ago. I'm not bitching that all of human nature needs to be changed immediately because I'm not that foolish to believe that is possible.
I love how you golss over the fact that a big racist asshole treated my friend like dirt by claiming that we refuse to acknowledge that it happens more often to black people. Well no shit. That is because most often the boss is white and the worker is black. That is statistics not racism. The point is that if you reverse the situation and more bosses were black you wouldn't have less racism or discrimination. THAT is the part YOU don't get. Your bitch is simply because whites have the greater opportunity to exhibit their prejudice to the detriment of blacks. Give blacks the same opportunity and they'll do the same damn thing to whites.
So you see my friend that you are not fighting the right fight. You are not fighting to eliminate racism/prejudice from the human race, only from the white race. You excuse it in the black race. Fuck that.
OAG,
Yeah your friend got fucked, and fucked badly. Yet he is one of a very small number of whites who experience this. And I really doubt that if blacks were in charge they would do the same thing.
I mean your post is full of stereotypes. You seem to think that all blacks are growing up to be defeatists, or waiting for some government "gift." What you do not see, and this is why I say that you have fallen for the race card, is that this policy has empowered a generation, not made them dependant.
AA has created black lawyers, doctors, and successful business people. AA has created Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Jesse Peterson and other black conservatives who now say that the policy hurts those its iintended to help, but coincidently it did not hurt them.
It provide no racial preferences to the disadvantage of whites, because the policy was created so that the colleges and workplaces of this nation reflected how this nation really looks.
Since the majority of the citizens in this nation are white, the majority of admissions and jobs, and construction contracts go to white people. Since this is the case, if you tried to prove this as discrimnation in a court of law, you couldn't.