Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh please.
You don't know who is on a gravy train here.
I have personally never received any aid at all.
I have heard many arguments about reverse discrimination.
People usually base the argument on the idea of an even playing field.
That is why the debates usually get stuck.
If the argument is that any AA in education is wrong and discriminatory- I would hope that you would agree that all discrimination is wrong. The wrongs of the past can not be righted and everyone is even. If so everything should go back to merit based.
This is how most of the posts sound to me.
Is that correct?
Close, but not exactly.
Say rather, racial discrimination is wrong. And some of the wrongs of the past, whether racial/religious discrimination (in whatever direction) or other unfair treatment, or just some bad luck of your ancestors, can be addressed through helping people who are poor -- whether they are black, white, brown, male, female, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.
(And as for the "gravy train" comment, anyone who claims to have "trained" Al Sharpton, one of the biggest race-baiters and bigots in America, is on the gravy train IMO. To the extent that comment was not true, then of course, so would my comment about a certain someone being on the gravy train be not true. But I'm going by what was said.)
Funny how that is solved by my solution to assist people based on their being poor, not on skin color or gender.
I have to admit I agree with you here. I would definitely give you on that what we need is a detailed plan and action on improving the poor class and increase the equality independent of race and gender, though any policy will end up covering minorities and women given they are the at-risk group no matter how you put it.
Here is the thing: Any policy that openly targets the poor class without attaching those "at-risk groups" are automatically called socialism. Therefore, it is not that easy to do it politically. I can only name Edwards that openly said he targets the poor class.
So I am happy you care for the poor class. Hopefully, one day you and me will have no trouble to defend policies to increase equality without being named socialist.
I have to admit I agree with you here. I would definitely give you on that what we need is a detailed plan and action on improving the poor class and increase the equality independent of race and gender, though any policy will end up covering minorities and women given they are the at-risk group no matter how you put it.
Here is the thing: Any policy that openly targets the poor class without attaching those "at-risk groups" are automatically called socialism. Therefore, it is not that easy to do it politically. I can only name Edwards that openly said he targets the poor class.
So I am happy you care for the poor class. Hopefully, one day you and me will have no trouble to defend policies to increase equality without being named socialist.
It seems we have found common ground. Personally, I consider a "socialist" approach a far less controversial way to go about trying to improve our society than the "racist" approach of discriminating against people based on factors they cannot control. There are special interests that need to be overcome, but I'm confident we are on the road to a society where people who are willing to work hard and support a productive culture will be given opportunities that they may not have been born into.
P.S. I think the reason why the "help poor people" approach is not easier to do politically than the "help racial category" shortcut is that it's more expensive, and the (mostly self-regarding "liberal") white elite knows it. The thing is, it would actually solve the problem if implemented, whereas all we do right now is window-dress the upper class in our society by sprinkling a few of these folks, a few of those folks, and then pat ourselves on the back and feel smug because our kids go to "diverse" schools of entitled, wealthy kids with some variety of skin colors and genitals.
It's not a question of defending as much as it is just pointing out the bigger picture.
In a perfect world everything would be merit based.
We have a history in this country of unfairness against certain people and to acknowledge that is not sick.
i dont care if you acknowledge it, its when you support and implement racist policies to make up for historical unfairnesses. affirmative action is a joke and it only weakens the races that it tries to help.
people who "benefit" from affirmative action end up being jokes. they are dumber than the other people in their fields because they got there on their race and not merit. look at michelle obama. she is an idiot with a princeton degree.
i dont care if you acknowledge it, its when you support and implement racist policies to make up for historical unfairnesses. affirmative action is a joke and it only weakens the races that it tries to help.
people who "benefit" from affirmative action end up being jokes. they are dumber than the other people in their fields because they got there on their race and not merit. look at michelle obama. she is an idiot with a princeton degree.
I don't see the point of going into partisan politics. Why take it there?
You can say the same about Bush- just a different form of AA really.
I don't see the point of going into partisan politics. Why take it there?
You can say the same about Bush- just a different form of AA really.
what partisan politics? im just using her because she is a clear example. she was writing at the level of a high school freshman when she was graduating princeton.
anyway, there is no justification for racial discrimination such as affirmative action. race should not play any part in decisions on who to accept in a school or a job. this whole victim, parasite mentality has done major damage to their culture as well. if they cant succeed now, its because these types of programs have created a culture where they believe they shouldnt have to work harder to succeed. everything should be handed to them.
i dont care if you acknowledge it, its when you support and implement racist policies to make up for historical unfairnesses. affirmative action is a joke and it only weakens the races that it tries to help.
people who "benefit" from affirmative action end up being jokes. they are dumber than the other people in their fields because they got there on their race and not merit. look at michelle obama. she is an idiot with a princeton degree.
Oh no you didn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
