I was hoping she would not be confirmed. Her views/record on civil asset forfeiture are terrifying.
Loretta Lynch Has No Problem With Civil Asset Forfeiture -- And That's A Problem - Forbes
I was hoping she would not be confirmed. Her views/record on civil asset forfeiture are terrifying.
Loretta Lynch Has No Problem With Civil Asset Forfeiture -- And That's A Problem - Forbes
More made up stats? Seems to be a specialty this thread. It's 20x this post, but might be 10x or 50x next time you cite this made up stat. Can't wait to find out!
And it really doesn't matter that many legacies are smart. They should be - the vast majority had access to the best schools from toddler through HS, tutors, test prep services, no need to work a job in HS or college, etc. And even with those advantages, legacy admissions is AA for rich white boys and girls, and it's the longest running AA program in the elite colleges. For some reason rich white boys defend AA for other rich white boys, but have a problem with AA for poor black kids. Weird how that works.
I thought it was 2,000? Or 1,200. Now you're back to 1,000. I guess the "or more" is your attempt at covering all the bases from 1,000 to 100,000? Either provide some evidence for your made up stats or give them a rest.
And for some reason you're obsessed with the woman's college record, but completely ignore a 30 year career, except to assert without the slightest evidence that anything she accomplished was "solely" due to race. When was the last time you obsessed about a white man's college record appointed to any political position? My guess is never. Without looking it up on wiki, you can't tell me the first thing about the education of Meese, Ashcroft, Thornburgh, etc. No one cares, or should care except as trivia, because it's irrelevant about 5 years after they left college and had a record in their careers.
Your problem is you don't have a rational argument. When a white man appoints a white man, 77 straight times, no problem. When a black man appoints a black man, it's AA. When a black man appoints a black woman, it's AA, and the black man must be pandering to a racial agenda. You can't really defend it because what you're alleging without saying it out loud is it never occurs to you that a black person can rise to a position of power on their merits.
To be fair, most politicians have "no problem" with this. It means they can cut taxes on the wealthy because they save on the police.. and the police can steal from the poor and middle class instead.
yeah I guess some drug dealer who has 200K in cash lying around but only reported 10K in income is poor. Think about it, if people targeted for asset forfeiture were truly poor-what would the government get from seizing their almost non-existent assets?
Fantastic news - for latin america. Obama and lynch have no intention of enforcing our immigration laws. They have invited all of latin america to dump their welfare bums on america.
you don't seem to understand this issue. what benefit does a university get by letting in black students with much lower scores and who often struggle to pass? I remember an interesting conversation that featured the late great Robert Dahl-one of Yale's top Professors. Dahl, certainly no conservative, heard a student complain about legacy admissions and Dahl asked him if he was paying full tuition. And the student admitted he was getting aid. And Dahl smiled and said-rich legacies are the reason why you can go here and not get hit by a ton of debt and why I can work here and make at least some what as much as I would for the Rand Corporation
wrong, if there was a pure meritocracy on law school admissions and the AG job, there's be more Asians and far less blacks
Kinda like what the earlier generations did with those 'damned Irish', Poles, Slavs, and other 'lesser folk' that huddled masses bit. far more of the 'nativists' forefathers came here steerage than first class.
But the haters don't like REAL history invoked....eace
you don't seem to understand this issue. what benefit does a university get by letting in black students with much lower scores and who often struggle to pass? I remember an interesting conversation that featured the late great Robert Dahl-one of Yale's top Professors. Dahl, certainly no conservative, heard a student complain about legacy admissions and Dahl asked him if he was paying full tuition. And the student admitted he was getting aid. And Dahl smiled and said-rich legacies are the reason why you can go here and not get hit by a ton of debt and why I can work here and make at least some what as much as I would for the Rand Corporation
You seem obsessed with trying to pretend Obama's selection was based on merit when it wasn't.
given how few blacks are really top law school graduates, your argument is silly. You act as if there are an equal number of blacks who really earned their way into top law schools as there are whites.
you don't seem to understand this issue. what benefit does a university get by letting in black students with much lower scores and who often struggle to pass? I remember an interesting conversation that featured the late great Robert Dahl-one of Yale's top Professors. Dahl, certainly no conservative, heard a student complain about legacy admissions and Dahl asked him if he was paying full tuition. And the student admitted he was getting aid. And Dahl smiled and said-rich legacies are the reason why you can go here and not get hit by a ton of debt and why I can work here and make at least some what as much as I would for the Rand Corporation
I don't blame that kid's frustration, because those legacies have had *everything* handed to them, including undeserved admission AND a free education (parents pay for it), and a cruise trip during spring break etc etc.
yeah I guess some drug dealer who has 200K in cash lying around but only reported 10K in income is poor. Think about it, if people targeted for asset forfeiture were truly poor-what would the government get from seizing their almost non-existent assets?
What i find more disturbing is this notion of dem or repub judges. I mean wtf? I thought the law is supposed to be as clear as possible and not subject to political interpretation
why do you care if the AG was picked on meritocracy, when the president himself is not picked that way? Nor anyone in elected office, including the vast majority of judges
Yeah, he knows how the world works, and there has never been an AG in the history of the country picked based on a 'meritocracy.' But he can make up standards that don't apply to any of the 79/83 white males appointed, subject black women to it, then conclude they only got the job because they're black based on his own made up standards.
I was hoping she would not be confirmed. Her views/record on civil asset forfeiture are terrifying.
Loretta Lynch Has No Problem With Civil Asset Forfeiture -- And That's A Problem - Forbes
To be fair, most politicians have "no problem" with this. It means they can cut taxes on the wealthy because they save on the police.. and the police can steal from the poor and middle class instead.
This is insane. Not only is she anti-america, but she is also a double affirmative action baby being both black and female. Totally unqualified but none of that matters anymore. Without AA she'd be a waitress.
Like I said, for some reason rich white boys defend AA for rich white boys. Weird how that works. Of course rich white boys justify AA for their own kids - they're rich, they're entitled to special treatment. Black kids not so much.
BTW, MIT manages to fund their endowment without legacy admissions. It's an excuse for legacy admissions, not the reason for them.
I love when this subject comes up and the same folks stumble forward to tell us how unfair and downright unAmericans affirmative actions programs are aimed at African Americans and other minorities but then fall all over themselves to justify AA programs like legacy admissions for rich white kids simply because its all a matter of whose oxe is being gored.
Intellectual consistency resulting in integrity seems to have gone the way of the tri-cornered hat for some making these justifications.
As usual your posts don't understand the difference. AA is based on race which violates title VII. programs that give jocks, chess masters, ballerinas or rich kids who fund the education of other kids breaks do not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?