Political Crossfire Forums

[Rankor and Pissing]

Ozzone wrote: The Comrade wrote: Zadoc wrote:
So, you are in favor of keeping poor Americans in the ghettos then, yes?

no one is in favor of that. we're in favor of equality.


when someone doesn't get into a college because they aren't white, or because they have the money to pay for it, that is discrimination.

Having more money isn't discrimination except in the eyes of a socialist.

Bingo! We have a winner! Yes distribution of wealth, the ultimate breeding of laziness and apathy.

[bigstick61]

I feel that affirmative action should be abolsihed, especially enforcement against private institutions, which have the right to decide who they let in and don't let in. In the case of public institutions, there should be no discrimination either way. Also, except for scholarships and such to attend public universities, I don't think the government should be giving anyone money for school, especially the Federal government; Federal funding and programs for such are unconstitutional and it is clearly an issue that belongs with the individual States, not the Federal government.

[The Comrade]

Zadoc wrote:

The fact is, in the United States, there more poor black and Mexican people than white people.

why should they be favored over white's or middle or upper class students?

Zadoc wrote:
If a program is created that assists all manner of poor Americans to attend college, then by number there will be a greater number of minorities who are eligible for the program, but a proportionally equal number of whites.

why should any one group have more of an advantage?

Zadoc wrote:
Really, if you are unable to comprehend at this point, please just give up. There is no way for me to dumb down the concept any further.

alas my heart is broken, how shall i go on?

[Zadoc]

The Comrade wrote: Zadoc wrote:

The fact is, in the United States, there more poor black and Mexican people than white people.

why should they be favored over white's or middle or upper class students?


They shouldn't. How many times do I have to tell you this?

Zadoc wrote:
If a program is created that assists all manner of poor Americans to attend college, then by number there will be a greater number of minorities who are eligible for the program, but a proportionally equal number of whites.

why should any one group have more of an advantage?
[/quote]

No one group should have more of an advantage.

Are you clear?

[The Comrade]

Zadoc wrote:

They shouldn't. How many times do I have to tell you this?

then why are you advocating a policy that would infact favor one group over the other?

Zadoc wrote:
No one group should have more of an advantage.

Are you clear?

then why are you advocating a policy that would infact favor one group over the other?

[CountryGuy]

Rankor and Pissing wrote: Ozzone wrote: The Comrade wrote: Zadoc wrote:
So, you are in favor of keeping poor Americans in the ghettos then, yes?

no one is in favor of that. we're in favor of equality.


when someone doesn't get into a college because they aren't white, or because they have the money to pay for it, that is discrimination.

Having more money isn't discrimination except in the eyes of a socialist.

Bingo! We have a winner! Yes distribution of wealth, the ultimate breeding of laziness and apathy.

I have to disagree with you on this one. When it comes to education, we should have the best and the brightest to help our country go forward, yes? If that's the case, how do you compare a rich B student - Who on average attends private schooling, may have tutoring, activities, etc. to the poor B student who travels hours to a decent public school (as the local neighborhood one is trash), a commute which keeps him/her out of activities?

If other factors even out, I think economic status is an excellent indicator of who should get a slot and who shouldn't.

I should note -- I DONT DONT DONT agree with quotas of any kind. What I believe is that in the case of two students with similar academic records, I would say 99% of the time the poor student will be the better choice academically.

[soldierofsoul]

CountryGuy wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Ozzone wrote: The Comrade wrote: Zadoc wrote:
So, you are in favor of keeping poor Americans in the ghettos then, yes?

no one is in favor of that. we're in favor of equality.


when someone doesn't get into a college because they aren't white, or because they have the money to pay for it, that is discrimination.

Having more money isn't discrimination except in the eyes of a socialist.

Bingo! We have a winner! Yes distribution of wealth, the ultimate breeding of laziness and apathy.

I have to disagree with you on this one. When it comes to education, we should have the best and the brightest to help our country go forward, yes? If that's the case, how do you compare a rich B student - Who on average attends private schooling, may have tutoring, activities, etc. to the poor B student who travels hours to a decent public school (as the local neighborhood one is trash), a commute which keeps him/her out of activities?

If other factors even out, I think economic status is an excellent indicator of who should get a slot and who shouldn't.

I should note -- I DONT DONT DONT agree with quotas of any kind. What I believe is that in the case of two students with similar academic records, I would say 99% of the time the poor student will be the better choice academically.

Well that is sort off a kind of generalization, I grew up poor, but I dont think they are better academically then rich students, now I agree the poor need help financially, but not rascially(is that not what were talking about?).

[micfranklin]

Zadoc wrote: Affirmative Action should exist in leveling the playing field between economic standings, not between races. A rich black person or Latino has just as good of a chance being accepted into Yale as a rich white kid.

However, under Affirmative Action, it can be argued that a poor white kid may have greater difficulty getting into Yale than an equally poor black or Latino kid with equal scholastic achievements.

If Affirmative Action were based on economic status, it wouldn't take into the effect of the equation an element that is irrelevant: race. It would take into affect economic background. This would still greatly favor minorities over whites, of course, however, it would be based on a variable of substance.

It does happen to be true that minority races, specifically blacks and Hispanics, are disproportionately poor and are disproportionately more poorly educated.

Affirmative action doesn't need a reboot, it needs to be gotten rid of, abolished, deleted, wiped away, and I'm speaking as a black person myself.

[Swampfox.f]

micfranklin wrote:

Affirmative action doesn't need a reboot, it needs to be gotten rid of, abolished, deleted, wiped away, and I'm speaking as a black person myself.


I agree, and while some social retribution can be justified for the blacks the hispanics have absolutely no right to claim any help.

[Thrilla]

micfranklin wrote: Zadoc wrote: Affirmative Action should exist in leveling the playing field between economic standings, not between races. A rich black person or Latino has just as good of a chance being accepted into Yale as a rich white kid.

However, under Affirmative Action, it can be argued that a poor white kid may have greater difficulty getting into Yale than an equally poor black or Latino kid with equal scholastic achievements.

If Affirmative Action were based on economic status, it wouldn't take into the effect of the equation an element that is irrelevant: race. It would take into affect economic background. This would still greatly favor minorities over whites, of course, however, it would be based on a variable of substance.

It does happen to be true that minority races, specifically blacks and Hispanics, are disproportionately poor and are disproportionately more poorly educated.

Affirmative action doesn't need a reboot, it needs to be gotten rid of, abolished, deleted, wiped away, and I'm speaking as a black person myself. this white boy concurs :tu:... finally.. racial harmony! :lol:

[Mr. Sunshine]

Affirmative Action is reverse discrimination whichever variables are applied. 8:)

[CountryGuy]

soldierofsoul wrote: CountryGuy wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Ozzone wrote: The Comrade wrote: Zadoc wrote:
So, you are in favor of keeping poor Americans in the ghettos then, yes?

no one is in favor of that. we're in favor of equality.


when someone doesn't get into a college because they aren't white, or because they have the money to pay for it, that is discrimination.

Having more money isn't discrimination except in the eyes of a socialist.

Bingo! We have a winner! Yes distribution of wealth, the ultimate breeding of laziness and apathy.

I have to disagree with you on this one. When it comes to education, we should have the best and the brightest to help our country go forward, yes? If that's the case, how do you compare a rich B student - Who on average attends private schooling, may have tutoring, activities, etc. to the poor B student who travels hours to a decent public school (as the local neighborhood one is trash), a commute which keeps him/her out of activities?

If other factors even out, I think economic status is an excellent indicator of who should get a slot and who shouldn't.

I should note -- I DONT DONT DONT agree with quotas of any kind. What I believe is that in the case of two students with similar academic records, I would say 99% of the time the poor student will be the better choice academically.

Well that is sort off a kind of generalization, I grew up poor, but I dont think they are better academically then rich students, now I agree the poor need help financially, but not rascially(is that not what were talking about?).

I grew up poor as well, and my wife is the product of private school. Comparing and contrasting notes, there is a HUGE difference in the facilities, teacher-student ratios, and environment.

[soldierofsoul]

CountryGuy wrote: soldierofsoul wrote: CountryGuy wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: Ozzone wrote: The Comrade wrote: Zadoc wrote:
So, you are in favor of keeping poor Americans in the ghettos then, yes?

no one is in favor of that. we're in favor of equality.


when someone doesn't get into a college because they aren't white, or because they have the money to pay for it, that is discrimination.

Having more money isn't discrimination except in the eyes of a socialist.

Bingo! We have a winner! Yes distribution of wealth, the ultimate breeding of laziness and apathy.

I have to disagree with you on this one. When it comes to education, we should have the best and the brightest to help our country go forward, yes? If that's the case, how do you compare a rich B student - Who on average attends private schooling, may have tutoring, activities, etc. to the poor B student who travels hours to a decent public school (as the local neighborhood one is trash), a commute which keeps him/her out of activities?

If other factors even out, I think economic status is an excellent indicator of who should get a slot and who shouldn't.

I should note -- I DONT DONT DONT agree with quotas of any kind. What I believe is that in the case of two students with similar academic records, I would say 99% of the time the poor student will be the better choice academically.

Well that is sort off a kind of generalization, I grew up poor, but I dont think they are better academically then rich students, now I agree the poor need help financially, but not rascially(is that not what were talking about?).

I grew up poor as well, and my wife is the product of private school. Comparing and contrasting notes, there is a HUGE difference in the facilities, teacher-student ratios, and environment.

But sir that does not mean that we should give minorities money, just for the hell of it based on race, trust me I know. But everyone has the same chance as I did in my ghetto living, I chose to try and make something of myself(still trying too). The government already helps poor people based economical needs. We just need to get rid off affirmative action, we must for racial and social concerns of our citizens.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

gavnook wrote: Tall people earn significantly more than short people. We need affirmative action for short people.

Agreed.

[micfranklin]

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: gavnook wrote: Tall people earn significantly more than short people. We need affirmative action for short people.

Agreed.

That's even worse than curren affirmative action...and stupid, too.

[Ozzone]

ontheyslay wrote: As I've said, people should not be penalized for the rest of their lives because of a couple wrong choices.

(ALERT: STRAWMAN ARGUMENT FOLLOWS)

So, in other words, let's forget about personal responsibility? It is our obligation to support those that fail to support themselves.

(I had to do it because of this strawman argument)

Quote: I guess you're view would be a good reason for abortion. They can't take care of them so abort them.

Nope. My view has nothing to do with it. If you can't understand what personal responsibility is, let me lay it out for you.

Personal Responsibility = not expecting others to solve your problems that you, yourself, created.

Quote: It is a lot easier for a child who comes from a rich family to go to college than someone who comes from a poor family.

Sure it is. Colleges are businesses that require tuition to provide a service.

Quote: You should not penalize someones children because their parents weren't as economically productive.

Nor should you penalize parents that are economically productive and can afford to provide for their own kids.

[thefranzkafkafront]

University applicants sould be admited on merit alone.

Scholarships exist for this purpose.

[soldierofsoul]

micfranklin wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: gavnook wrote: Tall people earn significantly more than short people. We need affirmative action for short people.

Agreed.

That's even worse than curren affirmative action...and stupid, too.

I think he was trying to make a point... :roll:

[micfranklin]

soldierofsoul wrote: micfranklin wrote: Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: gavnook wrote: Tall people earn significantly more than short people. We need affirmative action for short people.

Agreed.

That's even worse than curren affirmative action...and stupid, too.

I think he was trying to make a point... :roll:

Sarcasm.....

[Mr. Sunshine]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: University applicants sould be admited on merit alone.

Scholarships exist for this purpose.

Exactly, best qualified is the only way to go for education and employment. That is how academic institutions and corporations progress. :)