Clarify This For Me, Ee. What's Wrong With Civil Rights?

[emmitt01]

I still stand by my statement that the Civil Rights Act of 'sixty four'/ Affirmative Action is no longer needed.

1. Do I agree that these measures were needed at the time of implementation? yes. however, one can argue that these very same results would have happened by natural progression as they had been. How much more time would have been needed?? don't know ... it is hypothetical. one can argue a couple of years to never depending upon your point of view.

2. Do I think that these measures are still needed? no. 45 years has been enough time to implement these policies. Are most people color blind today? most certainly. Are there still mental midgets that, given the opportunity, will only hire a person of color of "their" own choosing? of course and always will be. Why? because there will always be racism. Government can not legislate an individuals bigotry away. That is why there is dr. phil and oprah.

3. If I were in a position to take advantage of these measures would I? heck yes I would. Why? $$$$. Have I taken advantage of government assistance? yep....the G.I. Bill.

4. Will these measures "ever" go away?? no. Why? Because, generally speaking, the democats need the people who rely on the civil rights measures, as their core voting base, as much as the republicans need the christian conservative vote as their core voting base. Here is the rub.....both sides get played like some first timer at a gentleman's club. These measures have, generally, placed the "hyphen" amongst all Americans where that "hyphen" was never present in the past. This has been the greatest dis-service of the act of sixty four. The "hyphen" --Balcanizes-- Americans which, in turn, creates chaos amongst the races. This choas creates votes amongst party lines which creates additional governmental power/contol amongst the parties. Dudes, this plan was written over a hundred years ago by Marx and Engles and has been played out many times in different countries. Read the "Communist Manifesto" and "Das Capital" and find out for yourselves. Don't let the government play you.

5. Is there equality in America today? sure there is and we are all products of these freedoms. Is there still inequality?? see #2.

6. Has my main thesis, on this issue, really been with race or government?? It has "always" been with government dividing the races. It is the government that sows the seeds of discontent by mandating "balcanized" special rights to the plethora of racial/social/gender/ etc etc etc groups and reaps the benefit of their votes. I do believe that man should be able to stand on his own qualifications, regardless of r/s/g etc etc etc to get a job without the help of a crutch. However, as long as that crutch is available....be it job or socail benefits....people will rely on this "candy" .... and vote for the "candy man" who provides the most candy. IMHO, these generous social benefits that have been provided by the government, have done more harm than good to the people who are "hooked" on them. These people live in true socialism(be it their fault or not) while others strive in a social-capitalist struture that is fast becoming more socailistic through the takeover of our core economic system.

I believe maybe you are confused.

Should it be illegal to deny me a job, social services or other basic public access? Yes. Is this affirmative action? No.

I think your complaint lies with an entirely different concept.

Edited June 17, 2009 by emmitt01

[Green Crazy]

affirmative action is a simple concept, it's the people that are in charge of hiring that f*** things up. the idea is to have your company/location resemble the demographics of the surrounding area, it's a goal not a quota. if there are legitimate reasons why a female/minority shouldn't get the job then they shouldn't be hired and the government is okay with it.

...and yes, this process is needed for a good percentage of companies.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Green Crazy

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

No, they didn't.

Well, so much for that.

I think you are confusing Fox News with "crazy internet rumors I got in my inbox"

--Wow... I don't have time to find all of them on U-tube but that were said... You have a terrible memory or are now just ignoring the truth. Granted Fox has pulled most of those old reports off the web (understandable, it makes them look like donkeys)

______________________________

Your comment:

I don't watch any news on television except for local news. I prefer to read or listen to radio.

Well that explains why you don't know what they are putting out. How could you possibly defend something you don't even watch.????????????

Edited June 17, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I can't claim to be 100% colorblind. I guess I am in the upper 90s. Color or ethnic background don't matter too much to me.

I really just hate poor people.

--I don't (I hope you're trying to funny) ..... Well maybe I do the ones who just sit on their butt and expect the world to support them and work the system. Some poor folks just don't have a lot "upstairs" to work with and do about the best they can.. I also see a few that life just has given a lot of bad luck or terrible "place" to work from (drunken parents, abusive homes, terrible employment situations, etc.) ...and they can't figure out how to overcome their problems, those really deserve our help.

[UNTflyer]

--Wow... I don't have time to find all of them on U-tube but that were said... You have a terrible memory or are now just ignoring the truth. Granted Fox has pulled most of those old reports off the web (understandable, it makes them look like donkeys)

"Talking heads making wild claims" != "Fox news reports"

And even then, most of what you are citing was Internet rumor.

Seriously, you can't claim with a straight face that Fox news reported Obama took the oath on the Koran.

[Censored by Laurie]

"Raised Muslim" - 1:49

"Went to Madrasa" - 1:54

Humor - 1:04

[UNT90]

affirmative action is a simple concept, it's the people that are in charge of hiring that f*** things up.

Or you could just substitute communism. Same concept.

[CMJ]

You know what's a similar concept to affirmative action? Giving scholarships to kids going to school. Most students who get them could not be going to a University for one reason or another. Maybe they're not quite as accomplished scholastically, but they play a sport well so the admissions bends a little bit to get them in. Maybe they have great grades, but don't have the money to go. Perhaps they play a mean double bass, but live in China and don't speak English very well - so they couldn't get in a USA University otherwise.

But they are all helped into a school they might otherwise be kept out of by scholarships.

I don't believe that's communism.

Edited June 18, 2009 by CMJ

[UNTflyer]

"Raised Muslim" - 1:49

"Went to Madrasa" - 1:54

Humor - 1:04

Cut and paste of out of context quotes, and "raised Muslim" was not in the original claims that I said wasn't true. He was raised as a Muslim, and his religion when he attended private school in Hawaii was listed as such. I was raised Southern Baptist, but I am not one today, and Fox did not report that Obama is a Muslim.

If you read the transcripts of these clips, they were reporting about how Insight Magazine put out a story alleging that Hillary Clinton's campaign were releasing these claims based on their private investigations.

Now, the distinction is subtle... I think Fox news was irresponsible to just repeat a story from Insight, but again it is an important difference from "Fox news reported that such and such." Reporting secong-hand news is not quite the same... it would be like me saying "ABC said space aliens are real!"

[UNT90]

You know what's a similar concept to affirmative action? Giving scholarships to kids going to school. Most students who get them could not be going to a University for one reason or another. Maybe they're not quite as accomplished scholastically, but they play a sport well so the admissions bends a little bit to get them in. Maybe they have great grades, but don't have the money to go. Perhaps they play a mean double bass, but live in China and don't speak English very well - so they couldn't get in a USA University otherwise.

But they are all helped into a school they might otherwise be kept out of by scholarships.

I don't believe that's communism.

Would love to see actual numbers on this. After all, I don't think Rielly Dodge was really in need of that scholarship.

Edited June 18, 2009 by UNT90

[CMJ]

Would love to see actual numbers on this. After all, I don't think Rielly Dodge was really in need of that scholarship.

Sure, there's always exceptions. But schools largely give out scholarships to get a more diverse student body - athletes, musicians, foreigners, artists, minorities, etc. - that wouldn't otherwise goto that institution Edited June 18, 2009 by CMJ

[UNT90]

Sure, there's always exceptions. But schools largely give out scholarships to get a more diverse student body - athletes, musicians, foreigners, artists, minorities, etc. - that wouldn't otherwise goto that institution

Athletes - Yes, many football and basketball players may not be able to attend college without the scholly, but what about Baseball, softball, tennis, volleyball, swimming, and all the other scholarship sports? Many of these have athletes from very affluent families.

Musicians - years and years of music lessons to get to a collegiate scholarship level = at least middle class

Foreigners - didn't know you got a scholarship for growing up in a different country

minorities - didn't know you got a scholarship for being a minority

Artists - don't know about that

I think the better argument is academic scholarships, which go to those that exceed in school. No amount of money needed, unlike to play on AAU teams (and hope Mel Hall ain't your coach) or take music lessons.

[CMJ]

Obviously I didn't put down every possible reason. My point is schools try to get a diverse population of kids. Whatever the reason. Diverse doesn't necessarily mean "poor" or "minority" -- but someone you might not get otherwise.

I suppose in my original statement I should have said WOULD not COULD. Could implies they couldn't - while would has more possibilities available. Maybe they can't afford it. Maybe they would go somewhere else. However that works out, you're still trying to draw in kids who are providing a more well rounded academic environment for everyone.

Edited June 18, 2009 by CMJ