The Republican Wish List

[2GOLD 0]

I always looked at AA as Person A and Person B are equally qualified. If the company is low on the "minority quota" and Person A is a minority, he/she/it gets the job.

 

That was what it was designed for. However, the wording is extremely flawed and it ended up being "well, we have to hire this person even if they may be less qualified than the following number."

 

Course, if you say AA law should be altered then you are a racist. If you are black and say it, then you are an Uncle Tom or whatever.

 

It's a joke.

[Justice 0]

But discrimination is still very widespread according to social science data.

Discrimination isn't nearly as widespread as when these huge programs were innacted. The problem is, these programs can't get small enough to fight the discrimination at hand. Right now we just need to wait for the education gap to naturally close itself rather than continuing tensions through reverse discrimination.

 

I'd hardly say that discrimination is gone. But I do not think it's nearly as widespread as you'd like to believe and that it's too small for programs to help. Again, gradual social change rather than government articially trying to apply social justice is the answer.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

However, the wording is extremely flawed and it ended up being "well, we have to hire this person even if they may be less qualified than the following number.

 

Numerous studies show that minorities who land their jobs through affirmative action are not less qualified than their colleagues.

[The Czech Republic 0]

White males do not lose the right to be hired for high-paying jobs; qualified women and minorities gain that right. True, awarding these rights will deprive some white males of their unfair chance to gain a high-paying job. But they should have never had such undue privilege in the first place, and taking it from them is not a violation of their rights.

WHAT?!?

 

If you're going to discriminate against me for the rest of my life because of the past, you better give me one good week of preferential treatment so you can at least justify this shit.

[The Czech Republic 0]

However, the wording is extremely flawed and it ended up being "well, we have to hire this person even if they may be less qualified than the following number.

 

Numerous studies show that minorities who land their jobs through affirmative action are not less qualified than their colleagues.

What's the saying in the medical circles, "watch out for black doctors under 40"?

[Justice 0]

White males do not lose the right to be hired for high-paying jobs; qualified women and minorities gain that right. True, awarding these rights will deprive some white males of their unfair chance to gain a high-paying job. But they should have never had such undue privilege in the first place, and taking it from them is not a violation of their rights.

WHAT?!?

 

If you're going to discriminate against me for the rest of my life because of the past, you better give me one good week of preferential treatment so you can at least justify this shit.

Yeah, for real. Where the hell is my harim?

[The Czech Republic 0]

White males do not lose the right to be hired for high-paying jobs; qualified women and minorities gain that right. True, awarding these rights will deprive some white males of their unfair chance to gain a high-paying job. But they should have never had such undue privilege in the first place, and taking it from them is not a violation of their rights.

WHAT?!?

 

If you're going to discriminate against me for the rest of my life because of the past, you better give me one good week of preferential treatment so you can at least justify this shit.

Yeah, for real. Where the hell is my harim?

I want someone to get my coffee!

 

I don't even like coffee. Get me some anyway!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think it is right to question whether affirmative action is the right way to go about correcting past and present injustice.

 

I don't, however, think it is "reverse discrimination."

[Justice 0]

I don't, however, think it is "reverse discrimination."

Explain to me how not allowing someone to get a job because he is white and the other guy is black is not discrimination.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The loss of undue privelege is not the same thing as the loss of rights.

[Justice 0]

The loss of undue privelege is not the same thing as the loss of rights.

No, it's not undue. There's no proof that it's undue anymore. It's a loss of priviledge on the basis of race or gender. It's discrimination.

 

Please, get out of 1968 and actually look at today's society.

[2GOLD 0]

The loss of undue privelege is not the same thing as the loss of rights.

 

The privilege of being born WHITE?!?!?!

So punishing someone for being white isn't racist...how exactly??

[The Czech Republic 0]

The loss of undue privelege is not the same thing as the loss of rights.

No, it's not undue. There's no proof that it's undue anymore. It's a loss of priviledge on the basis of race or gender. It's discrimination.

 

Please, get out of 1968 and actually look at today's society.

It's counter-productive to discriminate. It should be disallowed just on that alone, never mind civil rights.

[teke184 0]

1. Find some way to ally with or co-op enough Dem senators from red states to keep the remaining Dems from fillabustering judicial appointments.

 

Suggestions include Sen. Mary Landrieu of LA, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, and the Dem senators of Montana, North Dakota, etc.

 

 

2. Fill the remaining judicial appointments, including the new ones opened by splitting the Ninth Circuit into three separate circuits

 

 

3. Simplify the tax code WITHOUT raising taxes. This will probably involve simplifying the processes and forms used for income tax, rather than something more radical like a Flat Tax or a National Sales Tax. (I expect freshman senator Jim DeMint to push for the latter though.)

[Justice 0]

The loss of undue privelege is not the same thing as the loss of rights.

 

The privilege of being born WHITE?!?!?!

So punishing someone for being white isn't racist...how exactly??

Dude... it's white and MALE. You have to remember that part of it, otherwise your argument is completely wrong.

[The Czech Republic 0]

The privilege of being born WHITE?!?!?!

Yeah, you get 69-cent burgers at Wendy's

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

There is a great deal of evidence that racial and gender discrimination and disparities continue in the American workplace. Studies of hiring practices consistently show that when a black man and a white man or a white woman and a white man have essentially the same job qualifications and interview habits, the white man will be chosen over the competitor as much as 45% more often.

[2GOLD 0]

The privilege of being born WHITE?!?!?!

Yeah, you get 69-cent burgers at Wendy's

 

...really?

 

Dammit, I live in Delaware. No Wendy's within 25 miles of me.

[Justice 0]

There is a great deal of evidence that racial and gender discrimination and disparities continue in the American workplace. Studies of hiring practices consistently show that when a black man and a white man or a white woman and a white man have essentially the same job qualifications and interview habits, the white man will be chosen over the competitor as much as 45% more often.

Again, how recent are the studies? You keep bringing up these things without actually putting a source on it.

 

Not only this, but I really do question the idea of "Similar interview habits". Mannerisms are very unique to people, and can have different effects on different people. I doubt that you can really measure 'interview habits' as something because trying to mimic another person's habits can come off as very false or awkwards: if you had someone imitating my mannerisms in an interview, they'd come off in completely the wrong way.

 

Provide more information on your source, otherwise I'm not really sure on it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I will later...but just so that we understand each other...

 

You are suggesting that racial discrimination no longer occurs at any significant level in employment?

[Justice 0]

I will later...but just so that we understand each other...

 

You are suggesting that racial discrimination no longer occurs at any significant level in employment?

No. We never claimed that. But AA is not the way to change it. I discussed this in my earlier post: The problem is that we are only beginning to clear the education gap between races and genders. We already see many minorities taking upper level posts in companies. Seriously, it's been only 30 years: How many doctorates do you really expect to see in such a short time? In all honesty, time will close the gap as minorities become more and more educated. Your program based on a pseudo-sense of social justice is not needed when gradual social change will eventually fix it.

 

Your reasoning is extremely flawed, as well: Loss of undue priviledge has never been a valid justification ever since Bakke, which is why your defense falls so flat.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

In all honesty, time will close the gap as minorities become more and more educated. Your program based on a pseudo-sense of social justice is not needed when gradual social change will eventually fix it.

 

My program?

 

I'm not even sure if it's the best way.

 

I don't, however, think "your" idea that time will simply heal all wounds is necessarily true. For example, do you have evidence that the education gap is closing?

[Justice 0]

In all honesty, time will close the gap as minorities become more and more educated. Your program based on a pseudo-sense of social justice is not needed when gradual social change will eventually fix it.

 

My program?

 

I'm not even sure if it's the best way.

 

I don't, however, think "your" idea that time will simply heal all wounds is necessarily true. For example, do you have evidence that the education gap is closing?

The fact that more and more minorities are occupying higher jobs in high society, plus the natural osmosis of them into higher education. Aren't they also moving into the middle class more and more? I'm almost dead sure of that. Same with women, perhaps even moreso.

 

Just the simple fact that more of them are making it into better paying jobs necessitates that their children will likely have better education and a better chance at a good job. They are moving up in socio-economic ladder, so by deduction one would guess that they are getting better education and have access to it as wlel.

 

But again, your reasoning is the simplest reason that your entire argument fails. If you try to pass something that you want under the header of "Social Justice", it'll fail immediately because of the SCOTUS. It's illegal to try and enforce social justice on people who aren't necessarily at fault, which is entirely what your odd idea of "Taking away of unnecessary privilege" reeks utterly of.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The fact that more and more minorities are occupying higher jobs in high society, plus the natural osmosis of them into higher education. Aren't they also moving into the middle class more and more? I'm almost dead sure of that. Same with women, perhaps even moreso.

 

It would be interesting to see how much of this gain is due to affirmative action.

[Justice 0]

The fact that more and more minorities are occupying higher jobs in high society, plus the natural osmosis of them into higher education. Aren't they also moving into the middle class more and more? I'm almost dead sure of that. Same with women, perhaps even moreso.

 

It would be interesting to see how much of this gain is due to affirmative action.

I understand that they've gained under AA.

 

BUT.

 

They've made enough of a foothold to start moving past it. LBJ once said that "One can not expect someone whose limbs have atrophied under the chains of slavery to run a full race, so we must give them a head start". Just as well, they will never truly recover if they continue to rely on this head start.

 

I never said that AA didn't do anything before, but it's out of date now and now social change has to take place rather than continually trying to artificially create equillibrium.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I understand that they've gained under AA.

 

BUT.

 

They've made enough of a foothold to start moving past it. LBJ once said that "One can not expect someone whose limbs have atrophied under the chains of slavery to run a full race, so we must give them a head start". Just as well, they will never truly recover if they continue to rely on this head start.

 

I never said that AA didn't do anything before, but it's out of date now and now social change has to take place rather than continually trying to artificially create equillibrium.

 

I'll accept your premise that eventually AA is going to have to end. But how are you so sure that now is the best time to end it?

 

Maybe it is. I'm totally open to convincing.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

1. Find some way to ally with or co-op enough Dem senators from red states to keep the remaining Dems from fillabustering judicial appointments.

No way, nuh-uh. At this point, even the conservative Democrats are holding out hope these guys can make it through four years, because if they don't we quickly start bending for the religious wackos.

 

My previous take on the filibusters was basically "Eh, well, you know, there's nothing that says that they CAN'T." But having spent years bitching about the religious vote and seeing arrive in larger numbers than ever, I'm fully prepared to sell out my integrity if it means not having to deal with a Jesus Judge who's still young and will take for-fucking-ever to get ill enough to step down.

 

Rather than listen to the people who voted for "moral values," I'm hoping instead that we can simply survive them without any long-lasting mark by them on our country.

 

However, I'll still say that I'd be happier instead if we could convince some moderate Republicans who are becoming more and more concerned about their party to join us in knocking down these appointments rather than create karma with this fillibuster tactic. Not that all of Bush's appointments have been reprehensible, mind you, some of them have proven themselves in my eyes. But I think the choices we'll see between first term Bush and second term Bush are going to be different.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm a conservative and even I don't think it's in the best interests of the nation to move the Supreme Court too far to the right.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

They better not discontinue affirmative action before I can cash in. I JUST FOUND OUT I'm a minority like, three weeks ago, and I haven't had a chance to take advantage of it.

[Guest Brian]

They better not discontinue affirmative action before I can cash in. I JUST FOUND OUT I'm a minority like, three weeks ago

Liberal?