More Trent Lott stuff
- Thread starter MGKrebs
- Start date
Look,
I've said my piece. Thank you for indulging me. I'm no great orator. Either you have learned something or not. Take it for what it is- my perception. If you look at this issue with one tiny bit more insight (not sure that is the right word) than you had before, I am grateful.
I've said my piece. Thank you for indulging me. I'm no great orator. Either you have learned something or not. Take it for what it is- my perception. If you look at this issue with one tiny bit more insight (not sure that is the right word) than you had before, I am grateful.
I think that instead of seeing everything as black and white, we should see it as rich and poor. The poor, which is predominantly minority, feel oppressed because our MIXED economy (that's right, we are not a capitalistic society, we are very much so a mixed economy) has not provided them with the same fruit that it has for the middle or upper classes. These people need the help of our government, and as a more fortunate member of society, I choose to pay all of my taxes willingly and I choose to give to charity. Jesus Christ people, its Christmas, open your hearts to the less fortunate ones among us.
Biscuit
Livin' Large
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not in the narrower economic sense, i.e. a free-market. But thanks for the attempt at an economic lecture . I am sure you impressed yourself.
Yeah, you're on my list, Frank. I'm looking for any posts you've made that actually add anything to the coversation. This is the best I've come up with so far:
If you believe the White House had nothing to do with Lott stepping down, you're an idiot. Every major news source I've seen flat out says it was Karl Rove, who speaks for whom?
If you believe the White House had nothing to do with Lott stepping down, you're an idiot. Every major news source I've seen flat out says it was Karl Rove, who speaks for whom?
Maynard,
So confused! What “extra services” are being provided to the handicapped? Or is it that you are referring to accessibility? You know, the ability to get through the door that the minority already can get through if they choose. Aka, leveling the playing field.
I support affirmative action, as designed, not what it has become. I fully believe that everyone should have equal opportunity. What I don’t believe in is giving a targeted group “special” or additional privilege or lowering of the standards for them to qualify.
I agree with you in principle, Ken.
But let's look at the real world.
Minority contractors- In some places, a certain percentage of government contracts have to be awarded to minority contractors. Everybody still has to meet the basic qualifications, but if we recognize that without this history shows that the minority contractors will almost never get the job, even all else being equal. What else can we do? It's not perfect, but it's the best we got.
Many processes cannot be boiled down to a straight numerical formula. That contacting example is one. (You know as well as I do that the low price doesn't always get the job; some manager gets to decide that one company is more qualified then another for some reason. The government can't possibly review every contract of every jurisdiction to ensure fairness. So we use statistics to help us identify trends and problems, and we address the problems where we find them.) Real estate, banking, and employment rules are others.
The government can say all they want to that employers may not discriminate based on race. But how can you tell it's happening other than by taking a statistical sample? If it turns out that 95% of the new employees your company hires are white, they better be able to show a good reason for it. If 98% of a bank's loans go to white folks, they better be able to justify it.
That's what affirmative action means to me.
But let's look at the real world.
Minority contractors- In some places, a certain percentage of government contracts have to be awarded to minority contractors. Everybody still has to meet the basic qualifications, but if we recognize that without this history shows that the minority contractors will almost never get the job, even all else being equal. What else can we do? It's not perfect, but it's the best we got.
Many processes cannot be boiled down to a straight numerical formula. That contacting example is one. (You know as well as I do that the low price doesn't always get the job; some manager gets to decide that one company is more qualified then another for some reason. The government can't possibly review every contract of every jurisdiction to ensure fairness. So we use statistics to help us identify trends and problems, and we address the problems where we find them.) Real estate, banking, and employment rules are others.
The government can say all they want to that employers may not discriminate based on race. But how can you tell it's happening other than by taking a statistical sample? If it turns out that 95% of the new employees your company hires are white, they better be able to show a good reason for it. If 98% of a bank's loans go to white folks, they better be able to justify it.
That's what affirmative action means to me.
Re: I agree with you in principle, Ken.
To help me be clear on the topic, are you saying affirmative action means that if a company has 100 employees there should be an exact relationship between the employees and the local population statistics as to race, sex, ethnicity, age, religion, and disability?
Is that minorities or small businesses (which many minority owned companies fall under)? I believe that it is small businesses and I have no argument with that concept.
Okay, there has to be a government contracting rep out there amongst our posters, is he right or not? I am positive that every contract is reviewed to death in order to meet procurement/contracting guidelines for fairness along these lines.
They do justify it, when challenged. If they are found to have violated a protection of the Civil Rights Act they are prosecuted or barred from doing business with the government. It does happen.
To help me be clear on the topic, are you saying affirmative action means that if a company has 100 employees there should be an exact relationship between the employees and the local population statistics as to race, sex, ethnicity, age, religion, and disability?
Re: Re: I agree with you in principle, Ken.
Absolutlely not. But a government saying "15% of our contracts need to go to qualified minority owned businesses", i think I'm OK. And if you differ from those ratios, be prepared to justify it.
Having said that, I am not sure where I stand on the college admission issue. I don't have enough information.
On the one hand, if minorities are being given preference over better qualified whites, I have a problem.
But if all empirical data are equal, and a college chooses diversity as a "tiebreaker', I have no problem with that. It's a huge gray area though, because how does one rate extracirricular activities or legacy or "personal bearing"?
Absolutlely not. But a government saying "15% of our contracts need to go to qualified minority owned businesses", i think I'm OK. And if you differ from those ratios, be prepared to justify it.
Having said that, I am not sure where I stand on the college admission issue. I don't have enough information.
On the one hand, if minorities are being given preference over better qualified whites, I have a problem.
But if all empirical data are equal, and a college chooses diversity as a "tiebreaker', I have no problem with that. It's a huge gray area though, because how does one rate extracirricular activities or legacy or "personal bearing"?
K
Kain99
Guest
Re: Re: I agree with you in principle, Ken.
No way!! Krebs would never ever say something CRAZY like that Ken..... If we based everything fairly on the numbers the Black population wouldn't feel like they were getting a hand up at all!
Population 2002
White 88,076,002
Black 12,544,860
The Difference? There Are 75,531,142 more white people in the U.S. than Blacks. We are not really discussing "Equal Opportunity" Are we???
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/hh-fam/table4n.txt
No way!! Krebs would never ever say something CRAZY like that Ken..... If we based everything fairly on the numbers the Black population wouldn't feel like they were getting a hand up at all!
Population 2002
White 88,076,002
Black 12,544,860
The Difference? There Are 75,531,142 more white people in the U.S. than Blacks. We are not really discussing "Equal Opportunity" Are we???
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/hh-fam/table4n.txt
Re: Re: Re: I agree with you in principle, Ken.
Population 2002
White 211,460,626 (75.1%)
Black 34,658,190 (12.3%)
I think the data set you have used is for households. Try http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kprof00-us.pdf
Population 2002
White 211,460,626 (75.1%)
Black 34,658,190 (12.3%)
K
Kain99
Guest
Thanks Ken... But my point remains the same even with your numbers...
Don't start with me, Maynard! 
If black "leaders" and liberals would quit telling blacks how inferior they are and enslaving them, the numbers WOULD work out. I firmly and wholeheartedly believe that.
Who makes money and gains power when blacks get the short end of the stick? THE DEMOCRATS! Why? Because it's been one of their main themes (and with some, their ONLY theme) - "YOU NEED US! Without US, those bad Republicans would put you back in slavery. You wouldn't be able to vote, own property or even have a job. WE WILL FIGHT FOR YOU!"
Is it a coincidence that the cities with the poorest records in education are run by DEMOCRATS?
Is it a coincidence that inner cities, where blacks are killing each other every day, are run by DEMOCRATS?
How about that Democrats OPPOSE school choice, ensuring that poor blacks will stay in sub-standard school systems and never get the education they'll need to climb out of the pit?
How about that the Democrats are CONSTANTLY pitting blacks against whites, trying hard to keep the racial wars going so they can retain their power and make a little scratch?
How about that Democrats lose their minds over corporate swindlers like Ken Lay, who are predominantly victimizing white investors, yet try their darndest to have black criminals released so they can go back to preying on their, you guessed it, predominantly black victims?
How about that great black "leader" Jesse Jackson using RAINBOW/PUSH money (that was SUPPOSED to go to helping blacks) to set his mistress up in a nice big house? So at least ONE black unwed mother got something out of it, right?
Think about Hollywood actors (who are predominantly Democrats): they cry big tears and hold innumerable fundraisers for the poor and the homeless. Then they jump in their $100,000 car, press the gas with their $500 shoes and hightail it back to their multi-million dollar mansion in Bel Air. They could sell ONE of their automobiles and feed several poor families for a year. Or they could send 3 underprivileged black kids to college. But they don't do it, do they?
Democrats use emotion-based tactics to fool the public into thinking they "care" about minorities. Facts show that all they care about is money and power.
If black "leaders" and liberals would quit telling blacks how inferior they are and enslaving them, the numbers WOULD work out. I firmly and wholeheartedly believe that.Who makes money and gains power when blacks get the short end of the stick? THE DEMOCRATS! Why? Because it's been one of their main themes (and with some, their ONLY theme) - "YOU NEED US! Without US, those bad Republicans would put you back in slavery. You wouldn't be able to vote, own property or even have a job. WE WILL FIGHT FOR YOU!"
Is it a coincidence that the cities with the poorest records in education are run by DEMOCRATS?
Is it a coincidence that inner cities, where blacks are killing each other every day, are run by DEMOCRATS?
How about that Democrats OPPOSE school choice, ensuring that poor blacks will stay in sub-standard school systems and never get the education they'll need to climb out of the pit?
How about that the Democrats are CONSTANTLY pitting blacks against whites, trying hard to keep the racial wars going so they can retain their power and make a little scratch?
How about that Democrats lose their minds over corporate swindlers like Ken Lay, who are predominantly victimizing white investors, yet try their darndest to have black criminals released so they can go back to preying on their, you guessed it, predominantly black victims?
How about that great black "leader" Jesse Jackson using RAINBOW/PUSH money (that was SUPPOSED to go to helping blacks) to set his mistress up in a nice big house? So at least ONE black unwed mother got something out of it, right?
Think about Hollywood actors (who are predominantly Democrats): they cry big tears and hold innumerable fundraisers for the poor and the homeless. Then they jump in their $100,000 car, press the gas with their $500 shoes and hightail it back to their multi-million dollar mansion in Bel Air. They could sell ONE of their automobiles and feed several poor families for a year. Or they could send 3 underprivileged black kids to college. But they don't do it, do they?
Democrats use emotion-based tactics to fool the public into thinking they "care" about minorities. Facts show that all they care about is money and power.