PDA

View Full Version : Is affirmative action needed?


Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:26 AM
Affirmative action has become a plauge in society. We need to abolish it. It's just a travesty that jobs in this society don't go to the best man, but instead go to people because of who their parents are. We need a leader who can stand and deliver. A leader who has a spine and can see the moral difference between earning a position on merit and just getting one because of who they are. This starts with President Bush admitting that he got affirmative action to skip out of Vietnam and into a position that he didn't deserve ahead of men more qualified. ROFL

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:32 AM
I'd be curious to hear Bush's position on affirmative action, all things considered... Personally, I'm torn. If rich people get it, it seems like poor people should get it too...

Sticky issue...

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 12:34 AM
I'd be curious to hear Bush's position on affirmative action, all things considered... Personally, I'm torn. If rich people get it, it seems like poor people should get it too...

Sticky issue...

Are you BEGGING for participation? :rolleyes:

:shake:





:)

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:35 AM
Interesting:


Bush on affirmative action:

Mr. Bush denounced the Michigan policy as "fundamentally flawed" and unconstitutional. The program "amounts to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students solely on their race," Mr. Bush said in announcing that his administration would file a legal brief in the case with the Supreme Court on Thursday.



Hilarious... Apparently affirmative action for the darkies is no good. Affirmative action for him was A-ok!

Don't tell me there's no hypocrisy here... Just admit it and say you'll support him anyway...

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 12:35 AM
Interesting:


Bush on affirmative action:

Mr. Bush denounced the Michigan policy as "fundamentally flawed" and unconstitutional. The program "amounts to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students solely on their race," Mr. Bush said in announcing that his administration would file a legal brief in the case with the Supreme Court on Thursday.



Hilarious... Apparently affirmative action for the darkies is no good. Affirmative action for him was A-ok!

Don't tell me there's no hypocrisy here... Just admit it and say you'll support him anyway...

Definitely begging for participation in your thread.... :rolleyes:

ROFL

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:35 AM
Are you BEGGING for participation? :rolleyes:

:shake:





:)



ROFL This is wonderful stuff coming from you... The king of begging for people to participate in his threads...

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 12:37 AM
ROFL This is wonderful stuff coming from you... The king of begging for people to participate in his threads...

Skillet, meet the kettle.... :rolleyes:

(I'm just funnin' you about your remarks to me...)

Michael Michigan
09-11-2004, 12:38 AM
Blah, blah, blah ROFL

If you have to laugh at your own attempt at humor....

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:40 AM
If you have to laugh at your own attempt at humor....


That's the best you got? ROFL

I thought you were some national class wit?

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:42 AM
The most amusing thing to me about this thread is that you guys, who are the ones who no doubt would attack affirmative action at every corner, can't say a WORD about your president receiving it for himself to get out of duty to his country.

But I get attacked around this place so much that it doesn't bother/suprise me. I just enjoy seeing the sqirm.

Michael Michigan
09-11-2004, 12:43 AM
I thought you were some national class wit?

I am--that's the reason you don't get it.

;)

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 12:44 AM
The most amusing thing to me about this thread is that you guys, who are the ones who no doubt would attack affirmative action at every corner, can't say a WORD about your president receiving it for himself to get out of duty to his country.

But I get attacked around this place so much that it doesn't bother/suprise me. I just enjoy seeing the sqirm.

I'm okay with some affirmative action--as the Supreme Court has said, in cases of "egregious and long standing discrimination" that is clear and demonstratable.

Of course, that would shatter your stereotype of me....so I'll leave you to your delusions. :)

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:46 AM
I'm okay with some affirmative action--as the Supreme Court has said, in cases of "egregious and long standing discrimination" that is clear and demonstratable.

Of course, that would shatter your stereotype of me....so I'll leave you to your delusions. :)



What stereotype do I have of you?

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 12:47 AM
What stereotype do I have of you?

1. That I'd attack affirmative action for you, necessarily...

2. That I'm okay with Bush's working the system....

In both cases, if you made those assumptions, you'd be wrong.

jspchief
09-11-2004, 12:51 AM
How has Bush used affirmative action? If anything, affirmative action would make what Bush did more difficult.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:52 AM
How has Bush used affirmative action? If anything, affirmative action would make what Bush did more difficult.



Wow. ROFL

Taco John
09-11-2004, 12:54 AM
I guess I'm going to have to explain this one for the folks who have trouble connecting the dots...

Affirmative action is getting something not out of merit, but because of such reasons as the color of your skin (or in this case, who your daddy is).

Bush skated his whole life, all the way to the presidency on this kind of affirmative action... From Yale, to the National Guard... all the way to the Whitehouse.

Mr. Kotter
09-11-2004, 01:04 AM
...Affirmative action is getting something not out of merit, but because of such reasons as the color of your skin (or in this case, who your daddy is).

Bush skated his whole life, all the way to the presidency on this kind of affirmative action... From Yale, to the National Guard... all the way to the Whitehouse.

I certainly understand the analogy you are trying to make; however, your analogy is flawed....

Affirmative action was formulated to ameliorate the injustices of the past--racial discrimination, and sexism.

The advantages of wealth and family name are a fact of life, and life is not fair; the sooner we get over that, the better.

If you wish to make a proper analogy, you'd propose that someone like Bill Clinton, who came from a poor family and became an accomplished student and Rhode Scholar with government assistance and scholarships, got where he did because of affirmative action. And you would be right. And I would argue, that is okay; that is the way it is supposed to work....

Saying Bush benefitted from affirmative action, is like saying OJ benefitted from affirmative action....because he was black, jury nullification evened the playing field for him. That's not the case. OJ benefitted from the advatages that anyone with wealth has in our legal system...

JMHO. :)

Michael Michigan
09-11-2004, 01:05 AM
I guess I'm going to have to explain this one for the folks who have trouble connecting the dots...

Affirmative action is getting something not out of merit, but because of such reasons as the color of your skin (or in this case, who your daddy is).

Bush skated his whole life, all the way to the presidency on this kind of affirmative action... From Yale, to the National Guard... all the way to the Whitehouse.

So--what is the drug of choice tonight?

Taco John
09-11-2004, 01:05 AM
In the whitehouse? I believe he said he quit.

Michael Michigan
09-11-2004, 01:06 AM
In the whitehouse? I believe he said he quit.

Have you?

OldTownChief
09-11-2004, 01:10 AM
In the whitehouse? I believe he said he quit.

Like I stated to jAZ in an earlier post, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

jspchief
09-11-2004, 01:14 AM
I guess I'm going to have to explain this one for the folks who have trouble connecting the dots...

Affirmative action is getting something not out of merit, but because of such reasons as the color of your skin (or in this case, who your daddy is).

Bush skated his whole life, all the way to the presidency on this kind of affirmative action... From Yale, to the National Guard... all the way to the Whitehouse.

That's ridiculous. Affirmative action was established to provide opportunities to those who are under-priviledged, specifically because of descrimination. The unintended result is people getting undeserved opportunities based on things like skin color. Economic standing has nothing to do with it, whether you be priviledged or not.

This has to be the most twisted spin I've ever seen on this board. And that's saying a lot. Talk about reaching.

jspchief
09-11-2004, 01:20 AM
Here's a definition of affirmative action from Stanford's Dictionary of Philosophy:

"Affirmative action" means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded."

You're such a sad little man.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 01:45 AM
Have you?



Never did any coke. Did smoke some weed back in college though.

stevieray
09-11-2004, 01:49 AM
The point is irrelevant, because you, like the news agencies(all the media) you dog, think your opinion is fact.


Easy to tell when you're buzzed.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 01:51 AM
That's ridiculous. Affirmative action was established to provide opportunities to those who are under-priviledged, specifically because of descrimination. The unintended result is people getting undeserved opportunities based on things like skin color. Economic standing has nothing to do with it, whether you be priviledged or not.

This has to be the most twisted spin I've ever seen on this board. And that's saying a lot. Talk about reaching.



You're hilarious. Do whatever you can to miss the point, by God! Do whatever you can to ENTIRELY miss the point.


But watch this... You're going to like this:

That's ridiculous. Bush was provided opportunities because he was priviledged, specifically because of his father. The result was Bush getting undeserved opportunities, not based on merit but rather who dis daddy was. Economic and political standing had everything to do with it.


Bush received a form of alternative action that is only available to people with power. Don't ignore it, and then complain about your father or brother or even yourself losing a job to a black guy because of the color of his skin, despite your own being more qualified for the position. You'd be a hypocrite if you did.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 01:54 AM
The point is irrelevant, because you, like the news agencies(all the media) you dog, think your opinion is fact.




WOW!

That's one hell of a feat of circular logic you just accomplished there... Did you use a compass to write that sentance.

stevieray
09-11-2004, 02:02 AM
WOW!

That's one hell of a feat of circular logic you just accomplished there... Did you use a compass to write that sentance.

no it's you, after saying you wouldn't dog any vet, (unless it's against Kerry). You sit up on your high horse and called Vietnam Vets liars at LEAST fifty times. Since you've proclaimed them liars, you've spit on their service, no different than the protestors in the sixties. and highly ironic, considering you've never served in the military, been engaged in combat, or endured the continous black eye for serving your country.

It's you proclaiming to be a moderate, but only attacking one candidate.

And now, you come on the board and proclaim that he received affirmative action, then a form of affirmitve action, then act indignant towards others like we should all bow down to your infinite opinion, because if you say it....it must be so.

You're a liberal.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 02:24 AM
no it's you, after saying you wouldn't dog any vet, unless it's against Kerry. You sit up on your high horse and call Vietnam Vets liars at LEAST fifty times.

I gave them respect at first, because of who they were. But I will dog any vet that has proven to lie to America. Larry Thurlow is a liar. The record proves him to be a liar. There WERE bullet holes in the boat according to the damage assement. Larry Thurlow said that there were no bullets. The record proved Larry Thurlow to be a liar. When asked for his citation for his Bronze star, Thurlow came up empty. Why would he want to hide the citation that would "clear his name." Because Larry Thurlow is a liar.

Roy Hoffman can't decide if Kerry is a good man or scum on the bottom of the sea. One year, Hoffman is saying of Kerry's actions in Vietnam "It took guts, and I admire that." The next year he's calling Kerry a coward. Apparently, Roy Hoffman is a liar. Or maybe he's even WORSE than that. Maybe he's a [dun-dun-DUNnnn] flip-flopper!

George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale both CAMPAIGNED for John Kerry in 1996! Lonsdale said of Kerry back then that "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers." Now these two want to tell a story about what a terrible guy Kerry is? In this record (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html) Elliot acknowledged Kerry as "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group." Either these guys were lying then, or they are lying now... But all of a sudden we have a string of clear lies!


Since you've proclaimed them liars, you've spit on their service, no different than the protestors in the sixties.

I don't spit on their service. They spit on it themselves. I honor their service. But I dishonor their lies. Their lies make them a disgrace to the nation.


It's you proclaiming to be a moderate, but only attacking one candidate.

Whatever. That is false. There are plenty of things that I am willing to attack Kerry over. But I'd rather see him in office than Bush, so I won't break my back doing it.


And now, you come on the board and proclaim that he received affirmative action, then a form of affirmitve action, then act indignant towards others like we should all bow down to your infinite opinion, because if you say it....it must be so.

And yet you cannot deny that Bush received special treatment outside of merit. Instead, you have to attack the definition of Affirmative Action to somehow make it exclusive to minorities, and make rich privledge ok because it's just inherent in the sytem. It would be funny if it wasn't so sick.

I don't want to hear ANY Bush supporter EVER complain about Affirmative Action ever again and then try and tell me about their principles that are beyond reproach...


You're a liberal.

You can keep your label. I don't need it. You can call me a liberal. I don't care. I've got more constitutional principles in any of my stances on politics than any Republican, and I'm proud of it. If that makes me a liberal to you, I'll shrug and say "so what?"

stevieray
09-11-2004, 02:44 AM
I will dog any vet that has proven to lie to America for political gain. Larry Thurlow is a liar. The record proves him to be a liar. There WERE bullet holes in the boat according to the damage assement. Larry Thurlow said that there were no bullets. The record proved Larry Thurlow to be a liar. When asked for his citation for his Bronze star, Thurlow came up empty. Why would he want to hide the citation that would "clear his name." Because Larry Thurlow is a liar.

Roy Hoffman can't decide if Kerry is a good man or scum on the bottom of the sea. One year, Hoffman is saying of Kerry's actions in Vietnam "It took guts, and I admire that." The next year he's calling Kerry a coward. Apparently, Roy Hoffman is a liar. Or maybe he's even WORSE than that. Maybe he's a [dun-dun-DUNnnn] flip-flopper!

George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale both CAMPAIGNED for John Kerry in 1996! Lonsdale said of Kerry back then that "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers." Now these two want to tell a story about what a terrible guy Kerry is? In this record (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html) Elliot acknowledged Kerry as "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group." Either these guys were lying then, or they are lying now... But all of a sudden we have a string of clear lies!




I don't spit on their service. They spit on it themselves. I honor their service. But I dishonor their lies. Their lies make them a disgrace to the nation.




Whatever. That is false. There are plenty of things that I am willing to attack Kerry over. But I'd rather see him in office than Bush, so I won't break my back doing it.




And yet you cannot deny that Bush received special treatment outside of merit. Instead, you have to attack the definition of Affirmative Action to somehow make it exclusive to minorities, and make rich privledge ok because it's just inherent in the sytem. It would be funny if it wasn't so sick.

I don't want to hear ANY Bush supporter EVER complain about Affirmative Action ever again and then try and tell me about their principles that are beyone reproach...




You can keep your label. I don't need it. You can call me a liberal. I don't care. I've got more constitutional principles in any of my stances on politics than any Republican, and I'm proud of it. If that makes me a liberal to you, I'll shrug and say "so what?"

Lie for political gain....? that explains your dismissal of "being seared in Cambodia". I like how you hold vets who aren't running for office to higher standards, just like you've shrugged off every allegation and doublespeak about that has been proven about Kerry.

They spit on themselves? In your opinion. They are a disgrace to the nation? How dramatic. Maybe you should go kick their ass for letting you down.

you'll attack kerry...? ROFL Let's see, you dogged him for throwing medals..wow.

attack affirmative action...are you drunk, if anyone is attacking AA, it's you...YOU brought it into the equation. You are the one projecting how others are somehow making it exclusive to minorities. BS. That's all you. and once again, because you've decided it, it must be true. you never want to hear what again? is this racially motivated?

Priveledge...? grow up...that is the way of the world...sounds like jealousy to me.


Labels? How ironic how you dismiss labels, when you've thrown them out this whole campaign.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 02:50 AM
ho hum...

You're circular logic is what is most interesting... because you've decided it, it must be true.

stevieray
09-11-2004, 02:57 AM
ho hum...

You're circular logic is what is most interesting... because you've decided it, it must be true.

great retort. I'd avoid your doublestandard too.

no, the diffrence between you and I in this instance, is that I realize this is just my opinion. I'm going off what you've posted on this board.

You're trying to tell people the way it is, and how you'll condemn us if we dare deny your version of AA.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 03:10 AM
no, the diffrence between you and I in this instance, is that I realize this is just my opinion. I'm going off what you've posted on this board.

You're trying to tell people the way it is, and how you'll condemn us if we dare deny your version of AA.



Uh huh. Because everybody here knows that's exactly your nature.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 03:14 AM
The funny thing is... Through all that... Through all the stuff you just said... You didn't prove a single thing that I wrote as false. All of the swift boat contradictions, you shrugged and went after Kerry. All of the clear benefit without merit Bush received, you shrugged off and went after me for believing that what I say is true.

It's just all too f+ckin hilarious what this election is doing to otherwise good people.

jspchief
09-11-2004, 03:33 AM
Bush received a form of alternative action that is only available to people with power. Don't ignore it, and then complain about your father or brother or even yourself losing a job to a black guy because of the color of his skin, despite your own being more qualified for the position. You'd be a hypocrite if you did.
Alternative action? I thought we were talking about affirmative action. What the hell are you trying to pull?

Here's the definition again, since you ignored it the first time I posted it. Pay special attention to the parts in bold (they destroy your argument)

A definition of affirmative action from Stanford's Dictionary of Philosophy:

"Affirmative action" means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded."

How about another one from Webster's:

"Main Entry: affirmative action
Function: noun
: an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women "http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif


You're just making up your own definition. Saying that there are other "forms" that aren't part of the actual definition. You don't get to re-invent the english language to try and make your pathetic point. So what you are saying is complete bullsh*t. By definition, Bush didn't benefit from affirmative action because: a. He's not a woman or minority, and b. he wasn't improving his employment or educational opportunities. Case closed.

Now if you want to say that Bush received special treatment because of the wealth of his family, then fine. But it's not affirmative action. Period. So therefore, I'm not a hypocrite if I oppose affirmative action.

It's actually quite the opposite. I believe you should create your own opportunities. If you want to get your kids out of a war, make a good enough living that your wealth can accomplish it. Same goes for college.

And there's a reason that no one (but democraps) gives a sh*t about this issue. Because everyone wanted to get out of the war, or did get out of it. You didn't have to be rich. There were plenty of options. And the voting booths are going to be full of people that did avoid the Vietnam war using any number of methods. Just like any sane person would.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 03:52 AM
Didn't anyone ever teach you the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law? It's the same thing here. You can sit there and try to prove to me that Bush didn't get affirmative action because he isn't a minority, and you'll still not deflect the point. Bush most certainly got an active effort to improve his employment and his educational opportunities.

But hell, since it's the letter of the definition you're going for, I'd argue that it could be argued that he's a woman: a soft-handed cheerleader who needed a real man (his father) to get him anywhere in life .

And there's no doubt that he's a minority. That's why they call them the "richest one percent." (One percent of anything is a minority of it, and in both instances we're talking about people. Bust out the dictionary and, uh... look it up.

We could argue semantics on the letter of the definition all night and get nowhere... But here is what the difference is:

You say affirmative action an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

I say Bush received exactly that.

stevieray
09-11-2004, 04:03 AM
The funny thing is... Through all that... Through all the stuff you just said... You didn't prove a single thing that I wrote as false. All of the swift boat contradictions, you shrugged and went after Kerry. All of the clear benefit without merit Bush received, you shrugged off and went after me for believing that what I say is true.

It's just all too f+ckin hilarious what this election is doing to otherwise good people.

Funny how you need to post this if I'm wrong. You provided three examnples out of how many vets....? but they are all lying...?

You haven't proved that Bush received anything.

went after you...? more victim mantra for something you do yourself. Buck up Taco...Please tell me you are just stubborn, and it's just a coincidence that the two who come here just to stir the pot are Hispanic.

Because I'd like to believe that there is more to you than getting the last word in on something you've convinced yourself of.

stevieray
09-11-2004, 04:05 AM
[/b].

: a soft-handed cheerleader who needed a real man (his father) to get him anywhere in life .

.

More labels, more jealousy, more "daddy" talk.

stevieray
09-11-2004, 04:12 AM
Uh huh. Because everybody here knows that's exactly your nature.

what does everybody here have to do with it? Are you being dramatic again? I really must have struck a nerve.

I said in this instance...

Taco John
09-11-2004, 04:12 AM
Funny how you need to post this if I'm wrong. You provided three examnples out of how many vets....? but they are all lying...?

You haven't proved that Bush received anything.

[quote]went after you...? more victim mantra for something you do yourself. Buck up Taco...Please tell me you are just stubborn, and it's just a coincidence that the two who come here just to stir the pot are Hispanic.

Because I'd like to believe that there is more to you than getting the last word in on something you've convinced yourself of.


It's neato how you invented "victim mantra" to go after me for being of Mexican descent (and Denise is also). But when you unravell it, it wasn't "victim mantra" at all, and in actuality, you going after me. Me recognizing that isn't "victim mantra." It's just me acknowledging the situation for what it's worth and reacting to it. I have no problem with "being gone after." That's just part of life. Of course you were "going after me." That's how political discussions work.

Are you going to tell me that you weren't "going after me?"

jspchief had better bust out the dictionary and make a ruling on this one.

stevieray
09-11-2004, 04:15 AM
It's neato how you invented "victim mantra" to go after me for being of Mexican descent (and Denise is also). But when you unravell it, it wasn't "victim mantra" at all, and in actuality, you going after me. Me recognizing that isn't "victim mantra." It's just me acknowledging the situation for what it's worth and reacting to it. I have no problem with "being gone after." That's just part of life. Of course you were "going after me." That's how political discussions work.

Are you going to tell me that you weren't "going after me?"

jspchief had better bust out the dictionary and make a ruling on this one.


going after you for being mexican?

you've lost it. I asked you to tell me that it's just a coincidence, i gave you the benefit of the doubt. Quit being a martyr.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 04:25 AM
Lost it???

You asked:
"Please tell me you are just stubborn, and it's just a coincidence that the two who come here just to stir the pot are Hispanic."

Or boiled down to: "Are all Hispanic's pot stirrers?"

Is that accurate? Or inaccurate?

I realize the point you were trying to make was to put me in comparison with Denise. Which by the way, is in fact, an attack around here. *shrug* I dare anyone to deny it. I get it. It was an attack. I'm not crying over it. Just recognizing it for what it's worth... Buzzing like a fly, stinging like a bee.

The other day, Russ beat up Jaz for making allusions without coming out and getting straight to the point. You might take his advice and just come out and say what you want to say, instead of making allusions that are left open to interpretation.

stevieray
09-11-2004, 04:58 AM
Lost it???

You asked:
"Please tell me you are just stubborn, and it's just a coincidence that the two who come here just to stir the pot are Hispanic."

Or boiled down to: "Are all Hispanic's pot stirrers?"

Is that accurate? Or inaccurate?

I realize the point you were trying to make was to put me in comparison with Denise. Which by the way, is in fact, an attack around here. *shrug* I dare anyone to deny it. I get it. It was an attack. I'm not crying over it. Just recognizing it for what it's worth... Buzzing like a fly, stinging like a bee.

The other day, Russ beat up Jaz for making allusions without coming out and getting straight to the point. You might take his advice and just come out and say what you want to say, instead of making allusions that are left open to interpretation.

I'm not alluding to anything. There is nothing to say. I've never used your heritage against you in the past, and i'm not now. If anything, it just shows how fast you want to pull the race card. I asked you to tell me you were just being stubborn, that it IS a coincidence. You can admit you are wrong, where as she can't. Otherwise, it seems to appear that you both have to "win" almost every disagreement you get into. Or get the last word in. Or stir the pot. I don't know how you equate that to all hispanics. That was not my intention, and I apologize if it came across that way.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 05:29 AM
I'm not alluding to anything. There is nothing to say. I've never used your heritage against you in the past, and i'm not now. If anything, it just shows how fast you want to pull the race card.


Just for the record, I am not the one who introduced race into the conversation, and thus was not "fast to pull the race card."


I asked you to tell me you were just being stubborn, that it IS a coincidence. You can admit you are wrong, where as she can't. Otherwise, it seems to appear that you both have to "win" almost every disagreement you get into. Or get the last word in. Or stir the pot. I don't know how you equate that to all hispanics.

I got that from the bolded:

"Please tell me you are just stubborn, and it's just a coincidence that the two who come here just to stir the pot are Hispanic."



That was not my intention, and I apologize if it came across that way.

I know what your intention was and was thus not offended. Contrary to popular belief, the only time I get offended is when the context of the racial infraction is based on the emotion of hate. Usually that hate manifests itself in ugly ways prior to the racial infraction, and leave a breadcrumb trail that is easily followed. Our discussion tonight, while from very different persepctives, came nowhere near the boundry of hate.

Still, keep in mind that it was you that brought race into the discussion... for whatever reason that was.

Braincase
09-11-2004, 07:09 AM
How about a policy where we do complete a.a and quotas? What this country really needs are more neurosurgeons from Juarez, more Jewish NBA players, and more rabbis out of Compton.

Baby Lee
09-11-2004, 07:25 AM
This starts with President Bush admitting that he got affirmative action to skip out of Vietnam and into a position that he didn't deserve ahead of men more qualified.
What precisely does "more qualified" for the Texas Air National Guard mean?

jcl-kcfan2
09-11-2004, 08:08 AM
Taco
get over yourself please. you intermittently give a refreshing view from one of our teams rivals, there you have a little creedence, on this you don't.

KCWolfman
09-11-2004, 08:13 AM
Affirmative action has become a plauge in society. We need to abolish it. It's just a travesty that jobs in this society don't go to the best man, but instead go to people because of who their parents are. We need a leader who can stand and deliver. A leader who has a spine and can see the moral difference between earning a position on merit and just getting one because of who they are. This starts with President Bush admitting that he got affirmative action to skip out of Vietnam and into a position that he didn't deserve ahead of men more qualified. ROFL
Yes, we should become more "qualified" the good old American way, by marrying wealthy ugly widows to abuse their funds for our own purposes.

jspchief
09-11-2004, 10:11 AM
Didn't anyone ever teach you the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law? It's the same thing here. You can sit there and try to prove to me that Bush didn't get affirmative action because he isn't a minority, and you'll still not deflect the point. Bush most certainly got an active effort to improve his employment and his educational opportunities.

Letter of the law? I'm talking about the definition of the phrase "affirmative action". You can't just throw out phrases that mean one thing, and claim they mean something else. That's how the english language works. "Affirmative action" isn't slang, nor is it a broad generalization for anyone that gets an unfair break.

But hell, since it's the letter of the definition you're going for, I'd argue that it could be argued that he's a woman: a soft-handed cheerleader who needed a real man (his father) to get him anywhere in life .

Please. Your argument was weak anyway. Petty name calling just makes you look that much more stupid.

And there's no doubt that he's a minority. That's why they call them the "richest one percent." (One percent of anything is a minority of it, and in both instances we're talking about people. Bust out the dictionary and, uh... look it up.

OMG. That is so weak. You're talking to me about "letter of the law" and then coming with this absurd attempt to paint Bush as a minority. Yes, the wealthiest 1% make up a minority of the population, but so do 7' tall blondes named Jose...neither benefit from affirmative action. If you're stupid, you believe that's what the definition of AA is refering to.

We could argue semantics on the letter of the definition all night and get nowhere... But here is what the difference is:

You say affirmative action an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women

I say Bush received exactly that.

It's not semantics. The definition of affirmative action is not open for interpretation. You can't just highlight that parts you want to use, and ignore the rest. If you want to pretend Bush is part of the minority groups alluded to, fine. It just makes it evident what a moron you are.

I'm done trying to teach retards about this subject. You know that it's a weak argument. You know that I destroyed it. You know that your attempt to paint people as hypocrites is pathetic and there is no connection between affirmative action and priviledge of the wealthy...For chrissakes, they're practically polar opposites. Affirmative action was put in place to try and reduce priviledge of the wealthy.

Taco John
09-11-2004, 01:19 PM
You know that I destroyed it.


ROFL


I know that you soiled yourself and pulled out a dictionary to try and prove my point wrong... and miserably failed in the process.

Bush received special favors in front of more qualified people. That is the whole idea of affirmative action. Telling me that it isn't so because Bush isn't a minority is hilarious and pathetic at the same time. Especially when I did prove he was a minority. Why don't you bust out the dictionary and give us the definition of minority, there, genious.

I get that the traditional definition is "ethnic minority." But your own definition didn't state that. SO I guess you'd better start hunting around for a dictionary that does.