Compassionate conservatives on this forum...

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=402701#402701

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']On the whole, the analysis was actually pretty accurate to be made on the fly. Well, the inaccuracies are as follows:
"Thousands of soldiers dead" - only 1,000. See, that's practically nothing! That's 1,000 people whose lives have been ended by the war - assuming that they all had a family of 4 and only had 2 friends, and none of them had children or wives, that's only about 6,000 people whose lives have been permanently changed by the war.
Well, it's gonna take alot more than 6,000 lives ruined by a war conducted under false pretenses to get me not to vote Bush-Cheney!
[/quote]

Compassionate conservative.

Very compassionate.

Post your own sightings of 'compassionate conservatives'.

Compassionate conservative always seemed like a bullshit term to me.

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']Compassionate conservative always seemed like a bullshit term to me.[/quote]

There's a very good reason why: it is.

i dont feel like making a new thread, so lets just start it here.... i want to make a list of all the presidents who slayed civilians in the vietnam war and now brags about how brave he was.

i'll start. Kerry!


post your sightings of other Horse face civilian killers as you see them.

Quackzilla, I hope you realzied that was sarcasm.

If you'll just look at my avatar, you'll see that I am most definitely NOT voting for Bush (not that I can vote - but if I could, I wouldn't vote for him), and that I believe the Iraq war was a truly disgusting abuse of authority by a group of men who care nothing about soldiers or Iraqi civilians - and care even less about honesty and integrity.

So basically what you guys are saying is that you can't be both a republican and a caring person? That's garbage, you guys (quackzilla especially) have lost it.

No, you can be a Republican and a caring person.

But I fail to see how anyone who opposes welfare, rehabilitation for drug users, and affirmative action could possibly say with a straight face that they are anything but a cynical, self-serving egoist.
It just so happens that those are all common Republican talking points.

I care enough about people to realize they need to help themselves and not take handouts form the government (welfare). I have faith that there are enough caring people both democrat, republican, and those who don't give a shit what party you vote for, who will lend you a helping hand WITHOUT the need for government to do it by theft and by proxy.

I also believe that people should be rewarded by their own hard work, dedication, and merit, not based on the color of their skin. Affirmative action is inherently racist policy. You may claim it's payback, or a playing field leveler, but the only true playing field is an objective one - one that doesn't distinguish between black, brown, cream, white. Affirmative action is the antithisis of fairness in principle and in practice.

You think republicans are against welfare? They are against government welfare where there is no recourse and no choice for the donor. Against racism? Yes they are against racism which means they are phiilisophically opposed to affirmative action, a plan that does nothing but divide, quantify, and redistribute resourses based on the color of one's skin.

And against drug rehabilitation? What planet are you from? I honestly think burgeoning liberals soak up slime laid by their leaders like a sponge. Where in the world did you come up with that one? Did you also know that republicans want to kill babies?

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']No, you can be a Republican and a caring person.

But I fail to see how anyone who opposes welfare, rehabilitation for drug users, and affirmative action could possibly say with a straight face that they are anything but a cynical, self-serving egoist.
It just so happens that those are all common Republican talking points.[/quote]

Why is wanting equal rights for everyone being a "cynical, self-serving egotist"? Just wondering. I would also point out that Republicans (and President Clinton) carried out the most effective reform of the welfare system ever, which hardly seems like "opposing" welfare. Of course, you can spin it to make any reform look like "opposition" I suppose. I'm not a Republican, but I know plenty of Republicans and most are very caring people. Likewise Democrats. All y'all need to understand that most people out there really do care about things, even if they disagree on the way to make things better.

This is the problem with the democratic party and their followers. They think they have an exclusive claim on compassion. They believe that compassion means giving people money so they can survive for another month. Next month they need money again, so the compassionate thing to do is just give them some more. Increasing benefits means they care even more than anyone who want to change the system.

They want to give more money to education so it looks like they care more about it. Give favors to minorities, so it looks like they care about them as minorities instead of people. Give 12 week unemployment extentions because they care. Create a prescription drug subsidy because they care. A milk, sugar, wheat, and steel subsidy because they care.

Anyone who raises a child knows that there is a point when, as a parent, you have to 'let go' and allow your offspring to change his own underwear, feed himself with the spoon, learn to read because if you don't force him to do it himself, he will ever be dependant on you to do it for him. Perhaps this is the reciprocal relationship democrats are counting on : mutual dependency.

Anyone who raises a child knows that there is a point when, as a parent, you have to 'let go' and allow your offspring to change his own underwear, feed himself with the spoon, learn to read because if you don't force him to do it himself, he will ever be dependant on you to do it for him. Perhaps this is the reciprocal relationship democrats are counting on : mutual dependency.

That is why I think so many black people are democrat - they want to government to spoon feed them everything instead of getting of their asses and fixing their own communities.

We have a similar problem here in Miami with the Cubans who cry like babies for some government to do something about castro, but if they wanted to be free bad enough they would rise up and take him down themselves.

Anyway, I think that both sides are on the extreme end and need to meet somewhere in the middle.

Lot to address here, so let's get started:

Post #1:
-- "I care enough about people to realize they need to help themselves and not take handouts form the government (welfare)."
Case in point:
I don't know about you, but I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help someone who has just been laid off while they try to find a new job.
I also don't see much of a problem with my tax dollars going to help, say, a single mother who's trying to support herself and a child on minimum wage.
So let me ask you:
Would it bother you to know that your tax dollars were going to support people in such situations? If so, why?
Basically, what you just said was, "I care about you - so help yourself." Kinda contradictory, don't you think?

"Affirmative action is inherently racist policy. You may claim it's payback, or a playing field leveler, but the only true playing field is an objective one - one that doesn't distinguish between black, brown, cream, white."
I agree. However affirmative action is needed to keep an objective playing field.
Case in point here?
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=18736&pid=1115

This is a study in which 2 job applicants with compatible credentials responded to help-watned ads in which one applicant was named Greg - a stereotypical "white" name, and the other was named Jamal, a stereotypical "black" name.

The study found that, because of Jamal's "black-sounding" name, he was 50% less likely to be invited for an interview.
The study also found that a black college graduate will earn, on average, $500,000 less during his working years than a white college graduate.

Another interesting finding was:
"The study also outlined numerous obstacles that may prevent further progress for black students enrolled in college, such as increasing tuition costs and financial aid cuts that make it more difficult for low-income students, disproportionately black, to afford college degrees."

I hate to be the fire to burn down your utopian fantasyland, but we don't live in a race-blind society. So to compensate for our society's inherent racism, we have made affirmative action.

"I have faith that there are enough caring people both democrat, republican ... who will lend you a helping hand WITHOUT the need for government to do it by theft and by proxy."
Once again, hate to invade on the fantasyland you've created for yourself, but that's not very likely.
Besides, last time I checked, our government doesn't make decisions based on "faith." Then again, with the Iraq war, that may not be true.

"And against drug rehabilitation? What planet are you from?"
I'm from the planet where the War on Drugs has resulted in the arrests of over 1 million people this year alone - that's about one person every 20 seconds. I'm from the planet where the current drug czar says things like, '... this ineffectual policy — the latest manifestation of the liberals' commitment to a therapeutic state in which government serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation.'"
Does that sound very "pro-rehab" to you?

Post #2:
"Why is wanting equal rights for everyone being a 'cynical, self-serving egotist'?"
It's not. But to think that everyone is equal right now, you'd have to be either a total idealist, or very good at lying and believing yourself.

"I would also point out that Republicans (and President Clinton) carried out the most effective reform of the welfare system ever, which hardly seems like 'opposing' welfare."
It just seems like way too many people - like bmulligan - are opposed to welfare because, for whatever reason, they don't want to help people. Sure, they claim it's because they want everyone to have "personal freedom," but it seems to me like they're more concerned with looking out for themselves - if they weren't, then why would they even care whether or not a person chooses to "rely on handouts" from the government? It's that person's choice to "rely" on government handouts (I don't like that word in this context - because it implies that all people on welfare are just leeching off the government, leaving no room for the possibility that they might have hit hard times and just need some assistance while they get back on their feet - truly, the conservative view of welfare) - so what's the problem? Isn't that personal freedom?

"I'm not a Republican, but I know plenty of Republicans and most are very caring people."
I'm well aware, being that I know many Republicans myself.

Post #3:
"This is the problem with the democratic party and their followers."
Where are these "Democrats" you speak of? I hope you're not referring to me, because I most certainly am not one of them.

"They believe that compassion means giving people money so they can survive for another month. Next month they need money again, so the compassionate thing to do is just give them some more. Increasing benefits means they care even more than anyone who want to change the system."
I just believe in helping people when they need help. Hey, if the single mother down the street is getting some of my tax dollars to pay the rent while she finds a new job after getting laid off, I don't have a problem with that - why do you? Would you rather her not rely on government handouts and instead wait for people to just give her money out of the goodness of their hearts? You don't see alot of that nowadays, and I'd hate to think that that mother and her child are starving while they wait for it to happen - when with just a few dollars a month on my part, that could all be prevented.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']No, you can be a Republican and a caring person.

But I fail to see how anyone who opposes welfare, rehabilitation for drug users, and affirmative action could possibly say with a straight face that they are anything but a cynical, self-serving egoist.
It just so happens that those are all common Republican talking points.[/quote]

I oppose all social programs because I believe they have no place in a capitalist society. You want money? Get a job. Hooked on crack? Pay your own way into rehab or continue until you die, your choice. Can't get a job on your own merits? Don't play the race card, get some training and try again.

Social programs have prevented open revolt in the US. Take away all the social programs and see how long the social fabric stays intact.

[quote name='MrBadExample']Social programs have prevented open revolt in the US. Take away all the social programs and see how long the social fabric stays intact.[/quote]

Anyone who would revolt because they didn't get their welfare check needs a bullet in the head. If that bullet happens to be rubber, that's fine as long as it still kills them.

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='MrBadExample']Social programs have prevented open revolt in the US. Take away all the social programs and see how long the social fabric stays intact.[/quote]

Anyone who would revolt because they didn't get their welfare check needs a bullet in the head. If that bullet happens to be rubber, that's fine as long as it still kills them.[/quote]

But this is exactly what the Democrats run on every election: revolt against the power that wants to cut your entitlement. Fight the power, the MAN is keeping you down, join me and together we can rule the galaxy.....etc...

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']Lot to address here, so let's get started:

Post #1:
-- "I care enough about people to realize they need to help themselves and not take handouts form the government (welfare)."
Case in point:
I don't know about you, but I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help someone who has just been laid off while they try to find a new job.
I also don't see much of a problem with my tax dollars going to help, say, a single mother who's trying to support herself and a child on minimum wage.
So let me ask you:
Would it bother you to know that your tax dollars were going to support people in such situations? If so, why?
Basically, what you just said was, "I care about you - so help yourself." Kinda contradictory, don't you think?[/quote]

No, the point of my statement is that if YOU care about a person who has lost their job, then YOU should have the choice whether to give him a helping hand. There are plenty of groups and organizations who exist for this purpose and people CHOOSE to give money to these organizations. Allowing government to confiscate money from the taxpayers who have no choice in the matter is WRONG. If there were more personal charity relationships instead of this annonymous welfare then people would have a genuine desire to get off the Dole. It's much easier to take a freebie from some nameless bureaocracy that sends you a check in the mail than to have to go to a church or rec center to get your handout from a person who is giving it to you from their own pocketbook.

"Affirmative action is inherently racist policy. You may claim it's payback, or a playing field leveler, but the only true playing field is an objective one - one that doesn't distinguish between black, brown, cream, white."
I agree. However affirmative action is needed to keep an objective playing field.
Case in point here?
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=18736&pid=1115
This is a study in which 2 job applicants with compatible credentials responded to help-watned ads in which one applicant was named Greg - a stereotypical "white" name, and the other was named Jamal, a stereotypical "black" name.

The study found that, because of Jamal's "black-sounding" name, he was 50% less likely to be invited for an interview.
The study also found that a black college graduate will earn, on average, $500,000 less during his working years than a white college graduate.

Another interesting finding was:
"The study also outlined numerous obstacles that may prevent further progress for black students enrolled in college, such as increasing tuition costs and financial aid cuts that make it more difficult for low-income students, disproportionately black, to afford college degrees."

I hate to be the fire to burn down your utopian fantasyland, but we don't live in a race-blind society. So to compensate for our society's inherent racism, we have made affirmative action.

Click to expand...

No, we don't live in Utopia, but creating a racially biased policy isn't going to eliminate racism, is it? We have this thing called freedom, and if someone doen's want to hire me because I'm white then that's their choice, isn't it? Why should we be ordering people whom they can and cannot hire ? And in government run institutions, why shouldn't we have a policy to look at all applicants EQUALLY, instead of giving preferences to specific groups of people? Affirmative action does not treat people equally, that is the fact, not how you feel or percieve the issue. You can never 'compensate' for inherrent racism, and you can certainly never achieve this by LAW or DECREE.

"I have faith that there are enough caring people both democrat, republican ... who will lend you a helping hand WITHOUT the need for government to do it by theft and by proxy."
Once again, hate to invade on the fantasyland you've created for yourself, but that's not very likely.
Besides, last time I checked, our government doesn't make decisions based on "faith." Then again, with the Iraq war, that may not be true.

Click to expand...

Government makes decisions based on faith all the time. Every budget they pass is based on the faith they have in the IRS to collect taxes for the coming year. But you misplace MY faith in people and transposed it to the GOVERNMENT as having faith. You need to read more carefully. There are more than enough people to distribute charity without the inherrent wasteful bureaucracies of the Government to do it less effectively. Obviously you have never personally participated in any charity work yourself, nor are you familiar with the charitible organizations in your own community. You should get out more.

I'm not even going to get into the ';government run drug-rehab' argument with you. That should be a topic onto itself. Let's just say I agree that the US policies on Drugs are folly and have more sinister applications than curtailing drug use.


]

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']Post #2:
"Why is wanting equal rights for everyone being a 'cynical, self-serving egotist'?"
It's not. But to think that everyone is equal right now, you'd have to be either a total idealist, or very good at lying and believing yourself.[/quote]

I never said everyone was equal right now. It is going to be exceedingly difficult to get into a situation where everyone is completely equal. People will always have biases and money will always buy influence. We can make laws and societal norms to minimize these things, but making a law that effectively combats racism with more racism just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Anyway, it's much more important for education to be improved in poorer school districts in this regard because that will ultimately have a much bigger and better effect in providing equal opporunity.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']"I would also point out that Republicans (and President Clinton) carried out the most effective reform of the welfare system ever, which hardly seems like 'opposing' welfare."
It just seems like way too many people - like bmulligan - are opposed to welfare because, for whatever reason, they don't want to help people. Sure, they claim it's because they want everyone to have "personal freedom," but it seems to me like they're more concerned with looking out for themselves - if they weren't, then why would they even care whether or not a person chooses to "rely on handouts" from the government? It's that person's choice to "rely" on government handouts (I don't like that word in this context - because it implies that all people on welfare are just leeching off the government, leaving no room for the possibility that they might have hit hard times and just need some assistance while they get back on their feet - truly, the conservative view of welfare) - so what's the problem? Isn't that personal freedom?[/quote]

So personal freedom to you is relying on government handouts? I don't understand that, but maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying here.

BMulligan has successfully defended his position so I don't really need to.

[quote name='Scrubking']That is why I think so many black people are democrat - they want to government to spoon feed them everything instead of getting of their asses and fixing their own communities.[/quote]

Hey, that shit doesn't belong here.

This is not a KKK forum, so you have to show some restraint, okay?


Asshole.

[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Scrubking']That is why I think so many black people are democrat - they want to government to spoon feed them everything instead of getting of their asses and fixing their own communities.[/quote]

Hey, that shit doesn't belong here.

This is not a KKK forum, so you have to show some restraint, okay?


Asshole.[/quote]

It's not racist because it's true.

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']It's not racist because it's true.[/quote]

Racists tend to see logic in the illogical.

Don't know why, but it happens.

If you look at the percentage of blacks who are democrats and look at what the democrats do for them, the reasons become obvious. I don't have a problem with them abusing the system, but I do hate the system.

As Democratic President Lyndon Johnson is rumored to have said as he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "We just lost the South for a generation."

The racist southern Dixiecrats found their way to the Republican Party, where they reside to this day.
Maybe that's why so many black people are Democrats.
But you're right, it's far more plausible that they're just "abusing the system."

"No, the point of my statement is that if YOU care about a person who has lost their job, then YOU should have the choice whether to give him a helping hand."

If everyone was able to choose whether or not they want to help the poor, do you think there'd be enough people willing to step up and help to actually help every poor person?

Let me present you with another scenario for why we need federal welfare instead of just private charities. Yes, for the single mother on welfare, charities might be enough (if she's lucky enough to live in a mostly-wealthy area where there are plenty of donations). But what about this:
Just a few short weeks ago, Hurricane Frances hurtled through Florida, leaving a path of destruction in its wake.
The victims of that storm, needless to say, hit hard times (the insured losses are anywhere from $2 billion to $15 billion - keep in mind, that's insured losses).
Imagine, if you will, that there was no federal emergency response to the disaster, and instead, the burden of the post-storm recovery was shifted into the laps of private charity organizations.

The American National Red Cross was the #1 receiver of charitable donations in America last year. It received $1.7 billion.
Assuming that all of this money was spent giving the charity and not on administrative costs within the organization (blatantly false - private charities have been known to spend up to 90% of revenues on administrative costs) - and assuming the very conservative damage estimate of $2 billion, the amount of donations the Red Cross received last year would not be enough to fully alleviate the damage caused by Frances.

Or, imagine if we have another Hurricane Andrew, which did up to $26.5 billion in damages. There's no charity organization in the United States that could have helped in such a situation!

One more scenario here:
Now, you may be thinking that these cases are just anomalies, and, under normal circumstances, private charities can hold their own. Those of you who have seen Michael Moore's Roger & Me have a pretty good idea of why this wouldn't work. For those of you who haven't, it's the story of General Motors' shutting down of all or almost all factories in Flint, Michigan, moving the factories and jobs over to Mexico, where the lax labor laws allow for workers to be paid significantly less for working significantly longer than an American - and since GM was essentially the only employer in the area, the economic impact was devastating.
Such regional economic downfall is almost impossible to predict; and if it hits hard - as happened in Flint, Michigan - the local charity organizations are either rendered useless or considerably weakened, as they are affected by the downfall, just as everyone else in the area is. A national charity could step in and help, but it would have set up an office in the impoverished area. The federal government already has officies nationwide. This makes federal aid for such cases much easier to provide.

Examining every possible scenario, one has to conclude that a federal welfare system is more effective than relying on private charities, assuming they will continue to get donations at a rate high enough to help everyone, assuming they're all legitimate, and assuming every area is adequately covered, including slums and the like, where people barely have the money to support themselves, let alone a charity as well (quite an unreasonable assumption, if you ask me).

"... creating a racially biased policy isn't going to eliminate racism, is it?"
MISCONCEPTION:
Affirmative action isn't about eliminating racism. That's for sensitivity programs. Affirmative action about ensuring that non-white people can get a job.

Take away affirmative action and then you'll have lots and lots more white people being employed, and lots and lots fewer of other races.

"We have this thing called freedom, and if someone doen's want to hire me because I'm white then that's their choice, isn't it?"
Look at the study I posted again. If you let all employers decide who they want to hire, most will exclusively hire white people. The evidence is quite clear; there will be a dramatic drop in hiring of non-white-males. And if all/most employers refuse to hire black people, how do black people get jobs? If they can't get jobs, they'll have to fall back on that damnable welfare system we all hate so much.
So which is more important to you:
A black person's freedom to get a job, or a white person's freedom to be a bigot?

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']One more scenario here:
Now, you may be thinking that these cases are just anomalies, and, under normal circumstances, private charities can hold their own. Those of you who have seen Michael Moore's Roger & Me have a pretty good idea of why this wouldn't work. [/quote]

Never include Michael Moore when trying to make a logical argument. You've just destroyed all credibility you may have had.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']"... creating a racially biased policy isn't going to eliminate racism, is it?"
MISCONCEPTION:
Affirmative action isn't about eliminating racism. That's for sensitivity programs. Affirmative action about ensuring that non-white people can get a job.

Take away affirmative action and then you'll have lots and lots more white people being employed, and lots and lots fewer of other races.[/quote]

Oh, so we should have a racist policy not just to reverse previous racism (and hurting people who aren't racist in the process), but just to help people? Why resort to racism to help people get jobs? Why not better educate them? Why do you think blacks/others can't be as well educated and professional as whites and thereby get just as good jobs? Face it, "affirmative action" is a stupid policy that just perpetuates the current class structure in America while promoting racism. It should be immediately abolished.

I only specifically said black because I was trying to support Scrubking's previous statement. In my eyes it extends to all people on welfare etc. regardless of race.

For the most part, if you're a poor American it's your own fault and you deserve it. I have no compassion whatsoever for these people or their children. If you can't compete in today's world then you shouldn't be helped. Survival of the fittest should be the rule and not the exception. Social programs only serve to weaken both our great country and the human race in general.

"Never include Michael Moore when trying to make a logical argument. You've just destroyed all credibility you may have had."

I understand that Michael Moore doesn't quite have the best credibility, but I just couldn't think of any other movies about the massive job losses in Flint, Michigan.
I apologize, I'll try to do some research into that and see what other films on the subject I can find.
Still, it's good to see that your response to this:
"Relying entirely on private charities to help the poor could never work."
Is this:
"Michael Moore is stupid!"

"Oh, so we should have a racist policy not just to reverse previous racism (and hurting people who aren't racist in the process), but just to help people?"
Affirmative action isn't a racist policy.
It's a counter-racist policy. If people didn't discriminate based on race, the policy wouldn't exist.
It's so ironic that, no matter how many studies are made that show that white people have an unfair advantage when it comes to getting a job, no matter how evident it is that the job market favors whites, people still cry "racism!" at any attempt to level the playing field.

"Why do you think blacks/others can't be as well educated and professional as whites and thereby get just as good jobs?"
Learn to read, friend. The study I linked says that, while black enrollment in has increased significantly since 1968 (thanks to affirmative action, according to the study),
"The study also outlined numerous obstacles that may prevent further progress for black students enrolled in college, such as increasing tuition costs and financial aid cuts that make it more difficult for low-income students, disproportionately black, to afford college degrees."

Nevertheless, I believe this is dancing around the issue.
The issue is not whether or not blacks are as well-educated or "professional" (wtf?) as whites. The issue is that these people are being judged by the color of their skin and not being allowed jobs because of it.
The study I linked, and numerous others, prove just that.

Something needs to be done about such discrimination. Affirmative action ensures that people other than white males can get jobs.


I find it interesting that, based on bmulligan's comments, he has no problem with discrimination in the hiring process ("We have this thing called freedom, and if someone doen's want to hire me because I'm white then that's their choice, isn't it?"), and yet for some reason, this discrimination bothers him.
I find it interesting that destructive discrimination is okay, yet constructive discrimination is unacceptable.
There is a distinction which needs to be made between hiring-process discrimination and the kind of discrimination elicited by affirmative action. In the hiring process, this racial discrimination is motivated entirely by contempt towards anyone who isn't white. Affirmative action is not based on contempt towards white people; it is based on fairness. The statistics don't lie; whites have an unfair advantage in the job market.

Another important distinction between the two is that, while the overall effects of job discrimination are the concentration of much power in few hands and the societal subordination of non-white Americans, the effect of affirmative action is most certainly not the endangerment of the social status of white Americans.

So which is preferable:
A destructive form of discrimination whose only motivation is contempt and whose effect is the marginalization of all non-white Americans -
OR
A constructive form of discrimination whose motivation is giving everyone a fair shake and ensuring that one race does not monopolize the job market?

Well, me personally, I don't like discrimination, but if it absolutely has to be one or the other, I'm picking the one that's not intended to hurt people.

Intent doesn't matter, the fact is that both systems hurt people though AA is much worse in this day and age.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']"Never include Michael Moore when trying to make a logical argument. You've just destroyed all credibility you may have had."

I understand that Michael Moore doesn't quite have the best credibility, but I just couldn't think of any other movies about the massive job losses in Flint, Michigan.
I apologize, I'll try to do some research into that and see what other films on the subject I can find.
Still, it's good to see that your response to this:
"Relying entirely on private charities to help the poor could never work."
Is this:
"Michael Moore is stupid!"[/quote]

It wasn't my point to reply to. I just saw you used an example of a Michael Moore movie. Michael Moore is a pathological liar, so it's pretty dumb to use his movies as "evidence" in an argument.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']"Oh, so we should have a racist policy not just to reverse previous racism (and hurting people who aren't racist in the process), but just to help people?"
Affirmative action isn't a racist policy.
It's a counter-racist policy. If people didn't discriminate based on race, the policy wouldn't exist.
It's so ironic that, no matter how many studies are made that show that white people have an unfair advantage when it comes to getting a job, no matter how evident it is that the job market favors whites, people still cry "racism!" at any attempt to level the playing field.[/quote]

Affirmative action is a racist policy. It discriminates based on race.

I said nothing about leveling the playing field being racist, just using racism to "level" it being racist. I will stand by that, as it's 100% right.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']"Why do you think blacks/others can't be as well educated and professional as whites and thereby get just as good jobs?"
Learn to read, friend. The study I linked says that, while black enrollment in has increased significantly since 1968 (thanks to affirmative action, according to the study),
"The study also outlined numerous obstacles that may prevent further progress for black students enrolled in college, such as increasing tuition costs and financial aid cuts that make it more difficult for low-income students, disproportionately black, to afford college degrees."

Nevertheless, I believe this is dancing around the issue.
The issue is not whether or not blacks are as well-educated or "professional" (wtf?) as whites. The issue is that these people are being judged by the color of their skin and not being allowed jobs because of it.
The study I linked, and numerous others, prove just that.

Something needs to be done about such discrimination. Affirmative action ensures that people other than white males can get jobs.[/quote]

Well, most people, myself included, think that something should be done to prevent/combat racist discrimination in the job market. The argument you have set up is a straw man, therefore. The real question is what to do about it. With the EEOC and possible lawsuits, I would say quite a bit is already being done. I feel that the laws on the books, minus racist policy like "affirmative action", if vigorously enforced are going to be about as fair as we can get. I really do believe that the vast majority of people in this country do not carry out hiring practices with race as a consideration. Call me naive if you want, but I do think that most people are good people at heart.

As I have said, it's more important that we start correcting the root of the problem, which is equal opportunity for poorer (disproportionately minority) kids. Teaching kids that they can't achieve and deserve different treatment because of the color of their skin is, IMO, a short-sighted, damaging and hateful policy that has had and will continue to have negative effects on the country.

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']

I find it interesting that, based on bmulligan's comments, he has no problem with discrimination in the hiring process ("We have this thing called freedom, and if someone doen's want to hire me because I'm white then that's their choice, isn't it?"), and yet for some reason, this discrimination bothers him.
I find it interesting that destructive discrimination is okay, yet constructive discrimination is unacceptable.
There is a distinction which needs to be made between hiring-process discrimination and the kind of discrimination elicited by affirmative action. In the hiring process, this racial discrimination is motivated entirely by contempt towards anyone who isn't white. Affirmative action is not based on contempt towards white people; it is based on fairness. The statistics don't lie; whites have an unfair advantage in the job market.[/quote]

Then I guess qualified people have an unfair advantage too. Perhaps we should force employers to hire the homeless for pharmacutical research, after all, they need jobs too and it's unfair not to hire them because they smell bad, or have never been to college.

Another important distinction between the two is that, while the overall effects of job discrimination are the concentration of much power in few hands and the societal subordination of non-white Americans, the effect of affirmative action is most certainly not the endangerment of the social status of white Americans.

Click to expand...

Unknowingly you are a borderline socialist. You favor re-distribution of power because too few hands grasp it? You have no clue as to how the world works or how wealth is actually created. Not everyone is able to wield this 'power' you speak of. We absolutely need to discriminate between those who CAN, and those who CANNOT.

So which is preferable:
A destructive form of discrimination whose only motivation is contempt and whose effect is the marginalization of all non-white Americans -
OR
A constructive form of discrimination whose motivation is giving everyone a fair shake and ensuring that one race does not monopolize the job market?

Click to expand...

Again you have completely inverted the outcome of the premise. Affirmative action IS the destructive form of discrimination that openly declares minorities to be inferior, that they cannot obtain employment or status by their own merits. In general, the job market would be populated by the best qualified personel, regardless of race, were AA not to exist. By NO means is AA designed to give everyone a 'fair shake'. It's designed to give some more shakes than others based on race.

I think Charles Barkley said it best...

"I made a joke with my grandmother one time. I was asking her, "Why are we always a Democrat?" I said, "Because you know, I don't know. Everyone in Alabama is a Democrat. Why are we Democrats?" She said, "... Republicans are only for rich people." And I said, "I'm rich." And she hasn't given me a viable answer."

I am black and there is truth to some of what has been said here. It doesn't apply to everyone but it does apply to too many people in this country. In general I find that alot of people (regardless of race) who feel the government owes them something tend to vote democratic.

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']I only specifically said black because I was trying to support Scrubking's previous statement. In my eyes it extends to all people on welfare etc. regardless of race.

For the most part, if you're a poor American it's your own fault and you deserve it. I have no compassion whatsoever for these people or their children. If you can't compete in today's world then you shouldn't be helped. Survival of the fittest should be the rule and not the exception. Social programs only serve to weaken both our great country and the human race in general.[/quote]

Wow so it's your ing fault you're BORN into a life of poverty. See my feelings are this and even "elprinciple" somewhat likes the idea, the question is if he wants to pay(on education subject).
I believe in 5 central platforms and other government programs can be minimized according to said success.
One of the things that needs to be fixed is education. We need education funded for EVERYONE regardless of financial status and that includes college. You can comment all you want on scholarships but I'm sure there are not scholarships for EVERYONE with straight A's throughout school or it that, A's and B's.
Part of this issue is Reparations. I know some Republicans or people bitch and scream about it but the truth is Reparations need to be paid but not directly in a monetary format. Also it's not as much about the Reparations of the past but the one's of today. Look at the culmination of departments in the government such as HUD being neglected as well as "The Projects". These places need to be fixed, as well as government AND community taking a hand in cleaning it up. More money needs to be funneled into these inner city schools so kids can get a better environment to study around, better materials, etc.
Also more money needs to be funneled into tax free grants to help start up Black Business in these communities and perhaps elsewhere. Granted they have to be businesses that seem viable.
Getting back to the education aspect, you keep following this and I think you'll be surprised. Slowly but surely you'll be able to start minimizing Welfare and unemployment may be minimized as well but this is a gradual process.
The question is this: Are you willing to substitute one for the other?
Also I think we can SLOWLY minimize the Military and in the process set up transition programs for them to help them get a job in civilian life with a completely paid for education.
The next block would be national Healthcare. In this process however the thought process needs to be changed. We need to emphasize healthy eating habits and PREVENTATIVE care over treatment. After all I'm sure surgery costs more than taking Vitamins or whatever, depending on what it may have turned into. If we do this and most people follow it they may be surprised at how GOOD they feel as well as people being surprised at the taxes going down for it.
The 3 other blocks are "Small Business", "Corporations" and "The Environment".

Quack: I didn't think you could go so low. Attacking a candidate is ok, it's a democracy and if you don't like how someone acts or behaves then don't vote for him. Stereotyping all conservatives, not republicans, conservatives, people as warmongers and killers is just downright low. Futher, you're specifically attacking a forum member. Disagreeing is one thing, attacking is a different matter entirely.

Try and respect other people's opinions and grow up, mkay?