Poor me, poor, poor, me. (fast food, deport, illegals, states)

[wildbill80]

Originally Posted by SamBarrow

Just chalk it up to miscommunication. My point is that there are large blocks of every race in pretty much every economic class. So race-based programs are stupid nowadays IMO. It is 2011.

It happens. I agree that helping people shouldn't have to do with race. We're all in this together, so promoting one segment of society doesn't do any good for society at large. I hope there will come a time when people are more interested in improving all of society rather than just a small segment of it.

[Trackwatch]

Originally Posted by emilybh

I agree. If things were being done the way the Founding Fathers wanted it, it would be Even Steven across the board. What is fair is fair. Everyone has the SAME INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No special deals for certain ethnic groups or certain industries would have ever happened.

I think you need to retake American History, there was NEVER a policy even close to "Even Steven" in the early United States.

[Ceece]

I'm not a fan of special groups when it comes to funding. I can't remember where I saw it but some of the groups funded in my state (CA) are so specific it's not even funny. I mean, if you want to fund something that will focus on, say educating folks on a specific health issue, you don't need a special group for each ethnicity, cuture or socio-economic class do you? Talk about redundancy.

[softblueyz]

Originally Posted by emilybh

I agree. If things were being done the way the Founding Fathers wanted it, it would be Even Steven across the board. What is fair is fair. Everyone has the SAME INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No special deals for certain ethnic groups or certain industries would have ever happened.

Errrrrrr, our "Founding Fathers" were white, building the country on the backs of slaves and women had about as many rights as the slaves.

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by softblueyz

Errrrrrr, our "Founding Fathers" were white, building the country on the backs of slaves.

These slave states were competing with global cotton production.

Or, maybe they were comprised of greedy crackers.

They all had to do it, or go broke trying to compete with those who did.

We have that same "business dynamic" with China, right now.

So, we either convert to slavery, or die.

The 14th Amendment nationalized slavery.

[A&M_Indie_08]

Because the Democrat party would shrivel up and die if it were not for racism. Most of us just want to move forward and get along but Dems love racism because they can divide based on it

[softblueyz]

Originally Posted by ergohead

The 14th Amendment nationalized slavery.

So that made slavery OK for economic purposes, discounting the morality?

Following the Civil War, Congress submitted to the states three amendments as part of its Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to black citizens. The major provision of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to former slaves. Another equally important provision was the statement that “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The right to due process of law and equal protection of the law now applied to both the Federal and state governments. On June 16, 1866, the House Joint Resolution proposing the 14th amendment to the Constitution was submitted to the states. On July 28, 1868, the 14th amendment was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State, ratified by the necessary 28 of the 37 States, and became part of the supreme law of the land.

And the slaves lived happily ever after.

Oh, wait they didn't!!!!!

Not only did the 14th amendment fail to extend the Bill of Rights to the states; it also failed to protect the rights of black citizens. One legacy of Reconstruction was the determined struggle of black and white citizens to make the promise of the 14th amendment a reality. Citizens petitioned and initiated court cases, Congress enacted legislation, and the executive branch attempted to enforce measures that would guard all citizens’ rights. While these citizens did not succeed in empowering the 14th amendment during the Reconstruction, they effectively articulated arguments and offered dissenting opinions that would be the basis for change in the 20th century.

Then there were the Black Codes, written by white men:

The Black Codes were laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.

The black codes were enacted immediately after the American Civil War. Though varying from state to state, they each endeavored to secure a steady supply of cheap labor, and continued to assume the inferiority of the freed slaves. The black codes had their roots in the slave codes that had formerly been in effect. The premise behind chattel slavery in America was that slaves were property, and, as such, they had few, if any, legal rights. The slave codes, in their many loosely-defined forms, were seen as effective tools against slave unrest, particularly as a hedge against uprisings and runaways. Enforcement of slave codes also varied, but corporal punishment was widely and harshly employed to great effect.[3]

In reality, it wasn't until the Civil Rights movement and President Kennedy that the 14th and 15th Amendment actually was forced to do what it proposed to do.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by Had2SaySumthin

We need to get rid of all these special interest groups based on race, religion, and country of origin.

I see no reason why St Patty's day parades, or Puerto Rican day parades, or San Genaro festivals ought to be canceled because you can't bear they exist. Don't attend.
As for the infernal overemphasis in media conversations about latino community, or black or whatnot-- I fail to see how snow is colder for one group or another. Most of what comes out of their mouths is irrelevant, comes across to me as alienating themselves from all others competing or drowning out their national identity. This yields poor citizenship skills servicing ethnic insecurities.

Originally Posted by Had2SaySumthin

Affirmative action is a bald-faced joke, for one.

You don't appear to know anything about how it's implemented, particularly in free markets. I dislike quota systems overriding meritocracy. To my knowledge that has ended save for small town fire departments confused about definitions.

Originally Posted by Had2SaySumthin

in 2011, I'd have to say the playing field has been leveled.

You failed to prove your case but I believe focusing those who are eligible for affirmative action into the direction of small business is going to yield a better quality of level field for all concerned.

Originally Posted by Had2SaySumthin

So why do we still have this crap?

See reply to emily

Originally Posted by Had2SaySumthin

Why aren't we outlawing these types of groups, and doing away with the legislation?.... we have a black president. As far as achieving diversity goes, I say mission accomplished.

Diversity was intrinsically accomplished in the formation of this nation. Aptitude being unimpeded respective of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation etc is the point. Think of it as a uniform standard of professionalism. There has never been a prohibition put upon men restricting them from entering the Pillsbury bake off contest. Women don't whine and carry on when he wins. They don't put mustard powder in his frosting. Meritocracy prevails. I cannot say the same of men who ultimately handicap themselves with contrived prohibitions yielding self inflicted alienation from humanity.

Originally Posted by emilybh

I agree. If things were being done the way the Founding Fathers wanted it, it would be Even Steven across the board. What is fair is fair. Everyone has the SAME INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No special deals for certain ethnic groups or certain industries would have ever happened.

You don't have rights. They were enumerated to men only. Not even fractionally. Big Fat Zero. Inalienable to half the species at the expense of the other half.
The government should prove the constitution applies to me or expunge all laws applicable to myself and retroactively refund my lifetime of taxes. "Rights" are protections concocted by men to avert responsibility, leaving those without "rights" all the responsibility and none of the reward. When "rights" are understood to be a responsibility (risk and reward, credit and blame equally) the landscape of American mentalities & legal decisions will change appreciably.

[Magritte25]

Originally Posted by Aganusn

I would see no problem with regional affirmative action. Anyone claiming that society is equal on a social level is delusional, but some regions are more progressive than others.

I agree with this. I also think, in many areas, it is more of a class vs. race issue.

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by softblueyz

Errrrrrr, our "Founding Fathers" were white, building the country on the backs of slaves and women had about as many rights as the slaves.

I see no reason why she wouldn't be deported with the rest of the illegals. Men's rights groups should get right on that. All of womankind are anchor babies ruining the patriarchy.