• 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!

Whites Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America

To achieve "diversity" is the reason most cited. ;)
I don't think it is "discrimination" to treat people differently for legitimate/important/compelling reasons (depending on what the level of scrutiny is).

I don't know enough about the Grinnell College Diversity Preview Program to say whether it offends constitutional restrictions.
 
I don't think it is "discrimination" to treat people differently for legitimate/important/compelling reasons (depending on what the level of scrutiny is).

I don't know enough about the Grinnell College Diversity Preview Program to say whether it offends constitutional restrictions.

There is your problem, I even bolded it for you.

I was tempted to only bold only your first three words. ;)

Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Discrimination Law & Legal Definition
 
Last edited:
Pat Buchanan: "Whites Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America Now"

Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan made a statement Friday guaranteed to make liberal media members' heads spin.

During a discussion about Affirmative Action on PBS's McLaughlin Group, Buchanan said, "Whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now"

(video follows with full transcript, commentary and comments.): -> Pat Buchanan: 'Whites Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America Now' | NewsBusters

What say you, is Pat Buchanan right ?

I concur with Buchanan.

I am way too tired. I thought that your post said "Witches Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America." I was going to ventilate passionately about the exalted social status awarded to Wicked Witch of the West, Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg, Samantha Stevens and Witchiepoo.
 
I am way too tired. I thought that your post said "Witches Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America." I was going to ventilate passionately about the exalted social status awarded to Wicked Witch of the West, Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg, Samantha Stevens and Witchiepoo.
This just made me laugh out loud.
 
Well boo ****ing hoo! Talking point central's meme of the day slithers forth.
 
Pat Buchanan: "Whites Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America Now"

Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan made a statement Friday guaranteed to make liberal media members' heads spin.

During a discussion about Affirmative Action on PBS's McLaughlin Group, Buchanan said, "Whites are the only group that you can discriminate against legally in America now"

(video follows with full transcript, commentary and comments.): -> Pat Buchanan: 'Whites Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America Now' | NewsBusters

What say you, is Pat Buchanan right ?

I concur with Buchanan.

He forgot to mention black conservatives. They are the target of all black liberals when it comes to hatred and discrimination.
 
There were hundreds of highly qualified white applicants applying for our service academies over the past four years and were denied acceptance in the name of diversity so academically unqualified minority applicants could attend in their place.

The first of Obama's "Moron Officers Corps" just graduated a few months ago from our service academies.


The navy is getting orders from above to be more "diverse"..unfortunately the ability to fly isn't something that can be awarded to unqualified minorities through "affirmative action"
Aviation, Diversity, and Uncomfortable Truths | USNI Blog


We are spending millions of dollars chasing numbers for the sake of numbers. What if we – the Naval service – knew that the ability to change the racial and ethnic numbers coming in to aviation was totally outside our control? What if we also knew that the data being entered was full of errors, inaccurate, and not related to the larger desired outcome?

What if we knew that – but – decided that we were not only going to continue to try to control the uncontrollable, but to try to create accurate metrics from inaccurate data?

Well – that is what we are doing – and we’re even saying it.

The Naval Audit Service put out a report in OCT of 2011 titled, “Naval Pilot and Naval Flight Officer Diversity” that was released in a redacted version via a FOIA. You can get your own copy of it. There is a lot of good in the report, and it deserves a full read.

The problem as some see it is outlined early.

The Naval Pilot/Flight Officer communities, a significant portion of the Navy’s commissioned officers, are not on track to reflect the diversity of the nation. In his 2011Diversity Policy, The Chief of Naval Operations states that we “must…build a Navy that always reflects our Country’s make up.” Low enrollment, high attrition, low preference,and low selection at commissioning sources for certain minority groups, and low performance in flight training, are contributing to the lack of diversity.

If this trend continues, future senior leadership in the aviation community will not reflect the diversity of the nation......



"Student Naval Pilots/Flight Officers’ performance is measured using a Navy standard score. To be eligible for the jet training pipeline, a student Naval Pilot must receive a score of 50 or above. We reviewed the flight training performance standards and found that they appeared objective.

"However, we determined that African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic students’ average Navy standard scores were lower than Caucasians. These lower scores negatively affected the number from each minority group entering the jet pipeline."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As I say one can't just award pilots wings based on race in order to meet "quotas"..one has to actually be able to fly.



Read the article if you have a minute. It points out that navy pilots can't be awarded their wings by "affirmative action". They have to actually be able to accomplish the task, regardless of race..without killing themselves and their crew.
One commenter wisely said;
Aviation is a meritocracy--flying skill and astute judgment cannot be produced on demand to fit a social/political agenda.
 
Last edited:
There is your problem, I even bolded it for you.

I was tempted to only bold only your first three words. ;)



Discrimination Law & Legal Definition
Actually, that definition and mine do not conflict, because in the part you didn't highlight, it says "rather than on" merit. In some situations, it is necessary or advisable to distinguish between groups of people "because of" their merit. This is a "legitimate" purpose, which makes the rule non-discriminatory. My definition of discrimination is essentially disparate treatment for no good reason.

E.g., we give special benefits to married couples over single couples because we consider them more meritorious of those benefits. That is not discrimination if the distinction is legitimate.
 
Pat Buchanan is wrong.

Of course, he would say something like that in the wake of the Supreme Court Affirmative Action case that once again placed college admittance practices in the forefront. Let me be clear:

I DON'T believe this country should have college entrance or employee hiring practices centered around Affirmative Action programs. However, I'm not convinced we as a nation can get away from using such practice as a means to "balance the scales" so to speak in educational opportunities or employment among minorities just yet. Which brings me back to the point of my post.

Pat Buchanan is wrong. How can I say that?

According to 2012 US Census data, here are the statistics for college students, 18-24, who attained a college degree:

Whites:
Assoc. Degree (Occ./Acad.) - 1.38M
Bachelor's - 2.14M
Master's - 107K
PhD - 5K
Doctorate - 10K

Blacks:
Assoc. Degree (Occ./Acad.) - 214K
Bachelor's - 238K
Master's - 6K
PhD - 0
Doctorate - 0

Hispanics:
Assoc. Degree (Occ./Acad.) - 281K
Bachelor's - 295K
Master's - 11K
PhD - 2K
Doctorate - 3K

Asians:
Assoc. Degree (Occ./Acad.) - 74K
Bachelor's - 254K
Master's - 50K
PhD - 0
Doctorate - 2K

This is an argument that's gone on within Republican-Conservative circles since the 80's and it's gaining more traction now since statistical estimates indicates that the White population in America is likely to be surpassed by "Browns" (a combination of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians) by 2050. Secretly, I'm sure they're really concerned about it among the Hispanic population. Take another look at the numbers. There are more of Hispanics seeking degrees in higher education than ever before surpassing Asian and Black college student enrollment, 18-24 yo. However, there's another reason Mr. Buchanan would make such a wild claim: MONEY! And I'm not talking just about how scholarship funds are allocated.

A good, quality education is critical to improving one's economic standing. If a person is able to attain more than just an Associate's Degree, their odds of becoming prosperous increases exponentially. Newly enrolled White college students still hold a substantial lead over all other minority groups. So, I don't think they're in any danger of losing their place among the top of the college graduate heap any time too soon. But if Conservative Republicans can peal back Affirmative Action, they can effectively reduce the number of college entrants for minorities across the board thereby maintaining their "education dominance" and, thus, their hold on America's economic prosperity.

"The more you know, the more you grow..." your share of the American economic pie.
 
Last edited:
. Well I'm white and you just proved Pat Buchanan is right.
So, you were passed over for that promotion to assistant fry cook there at Burger King because of Stillballin? Who woulda thunk?!
 
Actually, that definition and mine do not conflict, because in the part you didn't highlight, it says "rather than on" merit. In some situations, it is necessary or advisable to distinguish between groups of people "because of" their merit. This is a "legitimate" purpose, which makes the rule non-discriminatory. My definition of discrimination is essentially disparate treatment for no good reason.

E.g., we give special benefits to married couples over single couples because we consider them more meritorious of those benefits. That is not discrimination if the distinction is legitimate.

Marriage is simply a choice to enter into a contractual relationship, race/gender/ethnicity is not a choice. What is the "good reason" to treat a rich, male and black person differently than a poor, female, and white person? What if my "good reason" is that I simply prefer to hire people that look, act, talk and dress like me, rather than simply the reverse?
 
Marriage is simply a choice to enter into a contractual relationship, race/gender/ethnicity is not a choice. What is the "good reason" to treat a rich, male and black person differently than a poor, female, and white person? What if my "good reason" is that I simply prefer to hire people that look, act, talk and dress like me, rather than simply the reverse?
There may not be many good reasons to treat people differently based on race, gender, or ethnicity, which is precisely why those distinctions require heightened scrutiny.

I think in many situations you are currently free to hire only people that act, talk, and dress like you. I can think of good reasons for that (ease of working together, etc.). Race and "look" may be slightly different because someone's race (and to an extent look) are immutable characteristics that don't really say much about how a person will, for example, act, talk, dress, etc.

For example, I wouldn't say that an employer who fires someone for insubordination is discriminating against the insubordinate. It may to some degree be an issue of semantics. Certainly it wouldn't offend the Equal Protection Clause.
 
So it's okay to discriminate against white people because some of them are wealthy?

The fallacy in this thought process lies in the belief that only wealthy whites benefit from privilege. The point is, we live in a society where the rules of the game are largely written by whites, for whites, and are enforced by whites. And it's not just the wealthy that reap the benefits.

Do I necessarily believe that affirmative actions are OK when evaluated in a vacuum? Not, not necessarily. But considering all the disadvantages that minorities have whites have no place bitching about affirmative action until they've walked in someone else's shoes. In reality, in SPITE of Affirmative Action programs, whites still enjoy immense advantages in American society simply by being the dominant majority, and there's research that backs this up. But in our society it's impolitic to point out these advantages because a lot of whites tend to be offended at the thought that they enjoy any sort of built in advantages. It's easier to whine about reverse racism and affirmative action and ignore your own privileges because the grass is always greener i suppose.
 
Last edited:
I am way too tired. I thought that your post said "Witches Are the Only Group That You Can Discriminate Against Legally in America." I was going to ventilate passionately about the exalted social status awarded to Wicked Witch of the West, Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg, Samantha Stevens and Witchiepoo.

Glad to see that some still have a sense of humor! :thumbs: I'm still laughing....

Good morning, Oftencold! :2wave:
 
:lamo:2rofll::monkey Sounds like you're the one who's whining because you couldn't handle someones opinion.

It also appears you're also attacking the messenger. Well I'm white and you just proved Pat Buchanan is right.

I could handle it, I just think Pat Buchanan is a flaming idiot. And unless I'm engaging in actively denying employment to Pat Buchanan and getting away with it because he's white I fail to see how I'm proving his case.

In fact, as an Asian-American and someone who's been on the other end of affirmative action, I've gotten into college and gotten jobs without having to blame blacks and affirmative action for my lack of success, so in reality I've proved that Pat Buchanan's claim is full of ****. Model minorities are the ones who suffer the most from affirmative action but you don't see us whining all the time about liberals and employers holding us back.
 
Last edited:
take matter in your own hands. go kill some white people and their babies. That outta teach them a lesson.

Anyway, how so? I've never heard asians crying about "culturally biased" school tests and such.

That's because we're like 5 percent of the population and don't own all the media outlets.
 
No, you can't discriminate against whites legally in America.

And why would you want to discriminate against anyone?

The Obama administration is very active discriminating against whites. They say it's in the name of diversity.

>..."According to Fleming, who once sat on the board of admissions, white applicants must have all As and Bs and test scores of at least 600 on the English and math parts of the SAT even to qualify for a “slate” of 10 applicants, from which only one will be chosen.

However, if you check a box indicating you are African-American, Hispanic, Native American or Asian, writes Fleming, “SAT scores to the mid 500s with quite a few Cs in classes … typically produces a vote of ‘qualified’ … with direct admission to Annapolis. They’re in and given a pro forma nomination to make it legit.”

If true, the U.S. Naval Academy is running a two-tier admissions system of the kind that kept Jennifer Gratz out of the University of Michigan and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

“Minority applicants with scores and grades down to the 300s and Cs and Ds also come, though after a year at our taxpayer-supported remedial school, the Naval Academy Preparatory School.”..."< Dumbing-Down the U.S. Navy - Patrick J. Buchanan - Official Website
 
This is one of the most insanely ****ing ignorant statements that I've ever seen. So because there are some rich white people out there, I should be able to be discriminated against? So other races get easier admission to college for their racial heritage, and I get disadvantaged?

I refer you to post 38 and 42.

You've shown that you are just as much, if not more racist than the people you're talking about. You've grouped all whites together and acted like we're all somehow super previliged and doing great.

Have I? Did I say that all whites are doing great? No. But even if you're piss poor in America, all other things being equal, it's a hell of an advantage to be white than any other race. And once again, there's evidence to back this up. That is my point. Just because you're white and not wealthy doesn't mean you don't benefit from privilege.

I'm sorry, but you don't deserve a god damn thing more than me because of your skin color. We should all be equal. Un-****ing-real.

I take that as a personal ****ing insult.

And yet we aren't, affirmative action or not.

And I agree, nobody deserves more because of their skin color. The reality is folks like Buchanan like to bitch about affirmative action while ignoring the fact that IN SPITE OF IT, whites have so many other built-in advantages due to their skin color that tend to be ignored. But affirmative action gets more press than white privilege because the majority in this country find it easier to bitch about how they're supposedly being screwed and feel offended when their own built-in benefits are pointed out.
 
Last edited:
He forgot to mention black conservatives. They are the target of all black liberals when it comes to hatred and discrimination.

I concur.

It's interesting who actually attacks, hates and discriminates against black conservatives.

Why do those hate mongers get a complete pass ?
 
That's because we're like 5 percent of the population and don't own all the media outlets.

Screw that, I want my own media outlet and my own bank. I'm white, I'm entitled to it by virtue of my skin color!

That's the jest of what you're aiming for buddy. Don't think your racial mentality is a bit... juvenile? I'm saying that assuming you've been born in 75 and thus, have a few years under your belt.
 
But even if you're piss poor in America, all other things being equal, it's a hell of an advantage to be white than any other race. And once again, there's evidence to back this up.
Post the link.





And I agree, nobody deserves more because of their skin color.
So any regulations that elevate one person over another based on race should be abolished? Is that your position?
Skills, knowledge, aptitude should be the ONLY criteria in hiring, school admission, etc, right?


The reality is folks like Buchanan like to bitch about affirmative action while ignoring the fact that IN SPITE OF IT, whites have so many other built-in advantages due to their skin color that tend to be ignored.

List those advantages and discuss them. Provide links.
 
Screw that, I want my own media outlet and my own bank. I'm white, I'm entitled to it by virtue of my skin color!

That's the jest of what you're aiming for buddy. Don't think your racial mentality is a bit... juvenile? I'm saying that assuming you've been born in 75 and thus, have a few years under your belt.

75 is just a number I wasn't born then lol. But no that wasn't what I was aiming for. The comment was made in jest and was meant to be semi-humorous. That being said, my point was that you won't hear a lot of Asian voices because 1) there simply aren't a lot of us out there and 2) We don't exactly have the tools to make our voices heard even if we did want to bitch about something.
 
75 is just a number I wasn't born then lol. But no that wasn't what I was aiming for. The comment was made in jest and was meant to be semi-humorous. That being said, my point was that you won't hear a lot of Asian voices because 1) there simply aren't a lot of us out there and 2) We don't exactly have the tools to make our voices heard even if we did want to bitch about something.
I'm no expert but I know 2 lovely little mainstream channels that are dying to get anything racially motivated out there. Especially if it's anti-white propaganda to further play the guilt-card, even though whites, as a race, have nothing to feel guilty for. It's a manufactured emotion. CNN and MSNBC.

Racial entitlements don't exist. There is no privilege for being white in the USA and there are a lot of pro-minorities affirmative actions out there. Asians don't complain about it because they don't have a victimhood mentality for the most part.
 
Back
Top Bottom