- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Which explains your position favoring that type of preferences while opposing those not for your crowd.
I would hope that rational and intelligent people judge policies by a bit more than is it good for their own selfish concerns.
If a white president appointed successive white appointees would you be crying racism?
They were completely qualified candidates. The majority of his cabinet and appointed positions are white. But he's had two black in a row in one position? Well that just doesn't sit well with TD.That spot should be given to a white person. Because that's whats right.
If anyone is curious as to why sometimes republicans get labeled racist, have a good read through of this thread.
Amen brother... amen. But its racism all scrubbed clean and bright with libertarian philosophy on it trying to disguise it pretending its now something else. Put some fancy lipstick on a pig - it is still a pig.
good athletes help a school more than people who have no standout skills.
legacies support the university and allow meritorious students to attend without being crushed by debt.
racism is evil Haymarket but you seem to support it because affirmative action benefits groups that tend to vote Democrat. That is really selfish as well as being racist because affirmative action is based on the racist attitude that blacks cannot actually get the credentials on their own that would allow them to compete with whites and asians
its not the libertarians who institutionally claim blacks cannot make it on their own and need to be beholden to Democrat Party masters to be given positions they couldn't own on their own
You are NOT accurately repeating my position. I have stated over and over again that I favor the absolute best being admitted to colleges with no preferences for anyone - and that includes legacies - athletes - musicians - minorities - or anyone else. I really do NOT care if the entire incoming class at some school is made up Asian females... or white males ..... or black transgender folks.... as long as they are the best according to the academic standard agreed upon.
Where did I say it was? :doh:roll:
true one is based on race which violates Title VII
No, preferences given to e.g. a chess master/violinist are based on merit, just a different standard than GPA and test scores. Same with an athlete. Legacy admissions aren't preferred based on merit but who their daddy or momma is and how much money they have donated to the school.
And at the time the offer to Lynch was legal, and it's obviously legal for her to accept any offer from Harvard. Once she was admitted and graduated, also entirely legal and appropriate for her to note that on her job applications and use it to her advantage same way you use your Yale education to yours.
And why is Lynch's entire CAREER illegitimate because she was admitted to college more than 30 years ago based on admission preferences, but your rich buddies admitted under legacy preferences are legitimately allowed to use their degrees for career advancement.
I know the answer - preferences should only go to the privileged elite, not to the proles. That seems to be your bottom line.
good athletes help a school more than people who have no standout skills.
legacies support the university and allow meritorious students to attend without being crushed by debt.
racism is evil Haymarket but you seem to support it because affirmative action benefits groups that tend to vote Democrat. That is really selfish as well as being racist because affirmative action is based on the racist attitude that blacks cannot actually get the credentials on their own that would allow them to compete with whites and asians
your adoption of another poster's post pretty much said that.
she was, Lynch was not. read what I said
you support the democrat imposed racial spoils system. I do not. and I tire of the Democrat party engaging in activity that furthers racial divides
She was the top federal prosecutor in Brooklyn. Look it up.
You still haven't come up with a single reason. Just admit the real reason you don't like her TD.
i seem to remember a time when Democratic Senators refused to let the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee go forward simply because they didn't like him.
And? That has nothing to do with what TD is saying. He is saying that she was unqualified and only appointed because she's a black affirmative action hire. I'm asking for evidence of his claim.
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.
.
Racist and elitist trash. You couldn't qualify to hang her lifetime achievement certificates on her office wall.
That's a baseless claim. Literally without any foundation. You have offered not even a whiff of evidence, not even an attempt at a persuasive case, for that assertion. Your evidence that she got those jobs solely because of her race is SHE is BLACK. That's it. The underlying assumption in your argument is black women cannot rise to power based on their own merits.
i seem to remember a time when Democratic Senators refused to let the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee go forward simply because they didn't like him.
Liberals are knocking down straw men again. She didn't get the job SOLELY because she is black. But it was a big factor and that is as wrong as anything can be.
And you agree that disliking a nominee is a perfectly valid reason not to confirm him/her?
Liberals are knocking down straw men again. She didn't get the job SOLELY because she is black. But it was a big factor and that is as wrong as anything can be.
Liberals are knocking down straw men again. She didn't get the job SOLELY because she is black. But it was a big factor and that is as wrong as anything can be.
true but I would argue a white woman with the same HS credentials as LL probably would not have been admitted to HLS and someone with only "cum laude" at Harvard who was a white male would not have been admitted into Harvard LS and so forth. Her race got her into a top law school and her race and that top law school degree got her her prior and current jobs
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?