• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:148] Affirmative Action promotes systemic racial discrimination.

calamity said:
Is me isolating the Stormfront garbage in your idiotic, long winded post specific enough for ya?
Click to expand...
No it is not, and if you think I value the opinions of illogical zealots you are sadly mistaken. People who make lame ad hominem insults end up looking like losers when they attempt to debate people who are far better at grasping reality.
 
RealityChecker said:
No it is not, and if you think I value the opinions of illogical zealots you are sadly mistaken. People who make lame ad hominem insults end up looking like losers when they attempt to debate people who are far better at grasping reality.
Click to expand...
You wrote the CT crap. Don't whine to me about your own mistakes.
 
RealityChecker said:
...Your are the one making mistakes and pointing out your departure from reality is not whining - it called winning. That would make you a loser.
Click to expand...
Do you deny writing what I quoted from your post?
 
bomberfox said:
Yes they do which is why reparations were paid. Yes we do give reparations. You are so bad at civics this is hilarious.

it is absolutely good for the government to pay reparations for cruelty it engaged in. Nobody lives in your childish microeconomic world. https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...d-japanese-americans-campaign-for-reparations
Click to expand...
no, we don't have reparations. They are unconstitutional. It's why politicians are TALKING about having them, even though they know full well it's unconstitutional and it will never stand up to judicial review.
 
RealityChecker said:
Wrong again
Click to expand...
denial of reality does not make it go away. Just makes you look silly.
RealityChecker said:
Your are the one making mistakes and pointing out your departure from reality is not whining - it called winning. That would make you a loser.
Click to expand...
Well, I have the actual definition of AA on my side, which has been provided for you. You are free to whine and stomp your feet like a child, but you remain as demonstrably incorrect as you were on page 1
 
rahl said:
denial of reality does not make it go away. Just makes you look silly.
Click to expand...
Projecting again I see.
rahl said:
Well, I have the actual definition of AA on my side, which has been provided for you. You are free to whine and stomp your feet like a child, but you remain as demonstrably incorrect as you were on page 1
Click to expand...
You have not provided any legal definition of AA. Agent J did but not on page 1 as you claimed. Of course, that Cornell Law School definition is only a definition of AA and not the definition of AA. There are many different AA policies and some are attempts to remedy past racial discrimination by promoting discrimination today against people who never personally were discriminated for. If race-based discrimination is a violation of the law than AA is illegal and immoral. One thing you were right about is that the government often does things that are illegal and immoral. On that we agree.
 
rahl said:
I've done it. I'm not in jail, or will i ever be for doing it.
Click to expand...
Well you just confessed to committing a criminal act. Boomerfox is right and you are wrong about burning one's own money. It is illegal. It is also incredible dumb. But if you believe boomerfox and I are wrong and it is okay to burn your own money why not post a video on YouTube of you burning some money?
 
I don't think there's any evidence that getting rid of affirmative action would make colleges less diverse overall. It would make some of the top schools less diverse, but that's about it. I mean, if Harvard rejects a black applicant, it's not like they're going to skip college and flip burgers for the rest of their life. They're going to attend some slightly less selective school.

I'm fine with getting rid of AA in college admissions. But we should also get rid of unfair systems that favor white students, like legacy admissions and athletic scholarships for sports no one cares about.
 
rahl said:
no, we don't have reparations. They are unconstitutional. It's why politicians are TALKING about having them, even though they know full well it's unconstitutional and it will never stand up to judicial review.
Click to expand...
Reparations were already paid to the japanese internment camp victims. It IS RIGHT THERE.

In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which officially apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 (equivalent to $44,000 in 2020) to each former internee who was still alive when the act was passed. The legislation admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."[30] By 1992, the U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion (equivalent to $3,500,000,000 in 2020) in reparations to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had been interned.[29][31]

Civil Liberties Act of 1988 | Densho Encyclopedia

encyclopedia.densho.org
 
Last edited:
rahl said:
no, we don't have reparations. They are unconstitutional. It's why politicians are TALKING about having them, even though they know full well it's unconstitutional and it will never stand up to judicial review.
Click to expand...
Nobody gives a shit about your i got mine **** you attitude. Reparations were paid and they can be paid again. You are lying.

you dont know jack shit about the US monetary system nor do you know law either.
 
RealityChecker said:
No he has not. It was not even rahl that posted that questionable definition here, but AGENT J. Even worse for these two is we know AGENT J searched google and he posted the one that he believed best suited his semantic argument. Well just searched "legal definition of affirmative action" on google and here is the first one: "Affirmative action is the process of a business or governmental agency in which it gives special rights of hiring or advancement to ethnic minorities to make up for past discrimination against that minority."

Well that one was not going to help AGENT J's semantic argument. But the second one was his choice from Cornell Law School. Here it is in full:

"A set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment. In modern American jurisprudence, it typically imposes remedies against discrimination on the basis of, at the very least, race, creed, color, and national origin." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action

Now TurtleDude is a lawyer and I am not, but as both he and I have noted this "a" definition of AA but not "the" definition. Even this definition does not eliminate ALL discrimination discrimination but only "unlawful discrimination". And AA by this definition does not eliminate race-based discrimination if its goal is to "remedy the results of such prior discrimination". So any AA policies that encourage or promote discrimination for or against college applicants or job applicants that are aimed at remedying past discrimination would be legal. Assuming I am interpreting these words correctly (I will defer to TurtleDude as he is more expert than I), even this "legal" definition of AA appears to not make all race-based discrimination against the law. Of course, as TD pointed out this is one of many definitions of AA. So for AGENT J and rahl to claim this one definition actually proves my OP wrong is simply not true. But then zealots do not care about the truth and favor false narratives that they repeat as "post-truths" ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
affirmative action can mean one or more of several programs. Giving blacks (most of whom cannot prove any actual personal discrimination) admissions breaks over better qualified whites and Asians (who almost never had anything to do with past discrimination) is one of the most popular and well known examples of "affirmative action"
 
bomberfox said:
Reparations were already paid to the japanese internment camp victims. It IS RIGHT THERE.

In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which officially apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government and authorized a payment of $20,000 (equivalent to $44,000 in 2020) to each former internee who was still alive when the act was passed. The legislation admitted that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership."[30] By 1992, the U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion (equivalent to $3,500,000,000 in 2020) in reparations to 82,219 Japanese Americans who had been interned.[29][31]

Civil Liberties Act of 1988 | Densho Encyclopedia

encyclopedia.densho.org
Click to expand...
how many former slaves are STILL ALIVE?
 
rahl said:
of course there is, and it's been provided for you.
Click to expand...
we reject your definition and you have not provided any authoritative proof that your definition is the only one that matters. Your definition is not the Clash
 
RealityChecker said:
Affirmative Action (AA) began with an presidential executive order by JFK back in 1961. Over time AA has evolved into laws and regulations that support systemic racism. Paradoxically the intent of AA was it was supposed to undermine racial discrimination. Like so many progressive left programs AA actually creates systemic racial discrimination and undermines individual liberty. No doubt the intent of AA was to reduce race based discrimination, but the effect of AA is now the only form of government promoted and condoned race-based discrimination. AA is immoral and conflicts with the civil rights laws which were intended to outlaw and discourage racial discrimination. AA seriously undermine merit and demands people be judged less on objective qualifications and more based on race, ethnicity, and gender indenity.
Click to expand...

This post is mostly true.

AA was important in changing sociaty. I made it work in the businesses I was involved in for 40 years.

It has most defiantly devolved into, "the white man always goes last" however.

I submit proof in the fact that Trump was elected President. No way that jackass would have been elected if the "white man" was not fed up with the discrimination he has suffered from policies that are no longer warranted.
 
noonereal said:
and who is supposed to pay? Heck, my ancestors did not even come to America until 1900.
Should I pay?

How about all the blacks I hired over equally qualified whites for 40 years? Do I get a break on the bill for this?
Click to expand...
or those of us who had ancestors who served the Union army. what about the descendants of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, who led the 54th Massachusetts and died with his black soldiers at Fort Wagner?
 
noonereal said:
This post is mostly true.

AA was important in changing sociaty. I made it work in the businesses I was involved in for 40 years.

It has most defiantly devolved into, "the white man always goes last" however.

I submit proof in the fact that Trump was elected President. No way that jackass would have been elected if the "white man" was not fed up with the discrimination he has suffered from policies that are no longer warranted.
Click to expand...
Thats not evidence.
 
noonereal said:
and who is supposed to pay? Heck, my ancestors did not even come to America until 1900.
Should I pay?

How about all the blacks I hired over equally qualified whites for 40 years? Do I get a break on the bill for this?
Click to expand...
The government pays. Affirmative action is a tie breaker. Those “its so hard to be a white guy boo hoo” people should be bitching at white women. I care not for their tears as they still have the edge in hiring chances. The stats do not agree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom