I don't wanna hear anymore crying over our BI-PARTISAN SC!

My point was that most righties, at least in this next thread, are not against all of AA.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...n-policy-in-the-us-has-come-to-an-end.611599/

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aff...tive,approved, and voluntary private programs.

Happy?

 

Nope. You are invited to refute the source I used, not whine about my having torn yours to shreds (GatewayPundit...geesh...what did you expect?).

 

As a disabled person, I do not favor AA for disabled people, or anyone else. I agree with the premise that merit is what matters, and if I'm more qualified, I should get the job, if not, not. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to work again, it will require a work from home position with flexible hours as part of the gift that keeps on giving is a bit of a sleeping disorder to go along with everything else.

But... I should be dead, at least 6 times by now, so I shouldn't complain too much. It also gave me the gift of a sneak preview of the afterlife.

 

I saw what you said the first time, which is precisely why I asked if you have an objective source to back up this claim of "most".

You do realize that is a hollow claim if your only proof is a few people that I assume you bickered with in another thread?

 

But it wasn't always that way and isn't always that way today, which is the reason for AA. AA isn't what people think it is or how the original law should be interpreted.

 

What part of AA do you hear righties complain about loudly?

 

The part that has the government putting their thumb on the scale of who does and does not get a job or admitted to a particular college.

This is not the proper role of government ( or a university), and is patently unfair to those that get passed over in lieu of this thumb on the scale.

 

Not really, but I suppose you're doing your best.
Back to your original point about AA opponents only being upset by the racial issue. The point is that the racial question (and only the racial question) was in play in today's SCOTUS decision about college admissions. And only racial AA violates the CRA of 1964.

 

With all that bias I don't see the point and like i said, don't care. Unless it comes from a site with your left wing seal of approval you will shun it. I hardly ever go after sources especially when its something that you can get the same info from 100s of different sites, just perhaps with different viewpoints.

 

No, I mean what covered group.....

 

Any group that is getting hired or admitted by virtue of their membership in that group rather than actual merit.

This is not the proper role of government ( or a university) and is patently unfair to those that get passed over in lieu of this thumb on the scale.

 

What bias? It was a straightforward recitation of the facts.

 

Yes and of course they are only FACTS when they come from YOUR sources
I'm over it dude
I look down on source hustling
I find it a strange approach when there are SO MANY other responses you can come up with but source hustling reeks of desperation.
What I find hilarious is you have the upper hand here and don't even know it!
I can always depend on the far left for some quality entertainment. Thank you!

 

Military veterans earned it and include racial groups. I would be happy to end the special treatment for women especially since they have a higher success rate than men in college degrees

 

Did you know in most States (48, I believe) you can get a voter registration card without proving your citizenship? It's all done on the honor system, no ID (above or beyond a utility bill) required, and because there is no paper trail at all, and any effort to 'profile' voters based on, say, their appearance, or the languages they do or don't speak, would likely get people fired. For example, some guy who looks Chinese, only speaks Chinese, and not a word of English, can get registered by checking a box on the application. Yes, it's illegal, but since nobody is checking, indeed it cannot even be checked, the amount of fraud could be small, or it could run in the multiple millions.

Additionally, and you'll have to take my word for it as I didn't keep my work, the day after the 2020 election, I ran the current at the time (mid-morning) numbers for the uncalled states, and for more than one, but less than I only remember it was more than one, Biden would have had to get 85-90% of the outstanding absentee votes to win, which ended up happening. Don't know about you, but considering even someone running unopposed typically won't get that much of the vote, that smells to me. But, it's water under the bridge at this point, and I am hoping that Biden stays alive until '24, and at this point I'm a tossup between Ron and Vivek. I like what Ron has done for Florida, but Vivek has some ideas that are right up my alley.

But, it's way, way too soon to know how all this is going to play out. All that said, my worst nightmare is not Biden getting reelected, it's Kamala somehow ending up in the Oval, and not as a guest. That witch can't even speak English properly, in a nod to Eddie Murphy, I think she's a bigfoot that her husband shaved down and taught her how to speak.

 

Why do you support any part of a discriminatory practice?

 

Amendment XIV to the US Constitution requires government to provide equal protection of the law to everyone, regardless of gender or race, amongst other things.

Ergo, it's a black letter violation of the Constitution to allow anything that violates that legal principal, which AA most certainly does, and always has. Even if you accept that once upon a time it was somehow justifiable despite the Constitutional prohibitions against such things, and I don't because, well, it says what it says, and it has not changed, that time has long since come and gone. Merit should be the only thing that matters when it comes to college admissions, and that comes down to grades, test scores, extra curriculars, and so forth. Those are the things, and not the amount of melanin in one's skin, that determines chances of success and who deserves to be admitted in the first place.

 

Being a veteran isn't an immutable characteristic. Veterans sacrifice the first part of their adulthood meaning they get a late start at college and getting a career. They deserve to be compensated on that. But if you believe that there are better methods of compensation, I could be on board with that.

 

If one believes AA is discriminatory then that person shouldn't support any of it.

https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact

 

Should veterans, women and the disabled be covered under AA as you interpret AA?

 

Are you kidding me? Bipartisan? This extremist RW SC has given the extreme RW two decisions that they have been salivating about for decades, all in one year. There is NOTHING bipartisan about this activist RW court, with it's ill-gotten 6:3 supermajority that represents a minority of the American people.

Of course, we can see that Trumpers have a big celebration today. Why? Because they feel that those minorities, ursurping whitey superiority have been put back into their place, where they belong, at the bottom of the food chain.

It is also funny to see RW posters gloating about "equality". Well, there is nothing equal about a black kid from an inner city neighborhood competing with a rich, white kid from the affluent suburbs for college admissions. They go on and on about meritocracy, when the merit they are really talking about is being born into a well-off family.

As I said before, I am not a fan of AA, but the reason why the RW is celebrating has nothing to do with the problems associated with AA.

 

Amen brother!

 

ADMISSIONS and FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE = 2 different things. Its also ignorant to assume there are no poor white kids from the inner city. Maybe you can be the next SC nominee? Biden loves himself some race hustlas!

 

Vets getting favorable treatment is a direct benefit of taking such a low paying potentially lethal job to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign, and domestic. That is not "affirmative action" in any sense of the word.

I've already told you that I do not think disabled persons should get special treatment in hiring, despite being one myself, nor do I think women should, and certainly, any favoritism shown to women by legal means would violate the Constitution, just as was found in this case dealing with race. I believe in the idea of blind justice, and a colorblind and genderblind society, though some things, like sports, do need to be segregated by gender or else women would rarely to never be competitive. Both the Williams sisters, two of the most fierce women tennis players ever lost to guys rated over 100 (I think he or they was in the 120s), which is a very good example. If they had to compete with men, nobody would have ever heard of them, just as none of us has the first clue who it was who beat them, nor would we recognize the name if someone said it.