• 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

I concur.

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

Why do those hate mongers get a complete pass ?

Good morning, APACHERAT! :2wave:

They are being attacked and vilified because they dare to question Lib ideology and decide to leave the plantation? What a crock, but it's the same old "one size fits all" thinking that seems so prevalent today! :thumbdown:
 
Post the link.






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?





List those advantages and discuss them. Provide links.

If we lived in a perfect world where such criteria weren't culturally biased, then yes. The reality is that we don't. We live in a world where employment and hiring is often more about who you know than what you know. And in this area whites - even less wealthy ones - have an advantageous position compared to their minority peers. The fallacy on the part of folks like Buchanan is the idea that in the absence of affirmative action we live in some type of colorblind meritocracy. This is a complete myth.

Links:

Primer on white privilege:

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh

On police searches:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf

On punishment and incarceration for drug possession:

United States - Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs

On the hiring process (abstract, not full academic article)

AEAweb: AER (94,4) p. 991 - Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

On white privilege in general and specific section on differential classroom experiences:

https://law.wustl.edu/journal/18/p245Wildmanbookpages.pdf

There's a ton of research out there. All you have to do is go and look for it.
 
Cry me a ****ing river.

Too bad it's Asians who actually suffer the most from affirmative action problems. Grow the **** up stop whining, recognize your damn privileges and grow some balls. I'll cry for you when whites stop owning the vast majority of sports franchises, fortune 500 companies, and dominate legislatures and executive and judicial offices pretty much everywhere.
Great. Now let's talk about the other 99% of whites. ;)
 
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.

There are still a few in the Naval Officers Corps who aren't yes men.

If you remember a couple of years ago Obama and the libs decided that the U.S. Navy SEAL's were to white. Obama sent the word down the chain of command that he wanted to see more black SEAL's.

The reason there are so few black SEAL's in the Navy because most blacks can't meet the minimum swimming requirements. Something to do with seals swim in water.

The endgame was that warriors finally won over Obama and the PC Navy's yes men. All Navy SEAL's will still have to be able to swim.

Since we are talking about sailors, there was a time when every sailor was a seaman first. Kinda like the Marine Corps where every Marine is a rifleman first no matter what his MOS is. For some reason, certain ethnicities (nationalities) produce better seamen than others. The British, the Americans during the 18th and 19th centuries. The War of 1812 had something to do with that. All of your Nordic people make good seamen. But one of the prizes during the era of sail was having a native Hawaiian as part of the ships crew, excellent sailors.
 
Something tells me you did not read more than half of the links .
 
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.

Sorry Rainman but you're just plain incorrect on this one.
 
If we lived in a perfect world where such criteria weren't culturally biased, then yes. The reality is that we don't. We live in a world where employment and hiring is often more about who you know than what you know. And in this area whites - even less wealthy ones - have an advantageous position compared to their minority peers. The fallacy on the part of folks like Buchanan is the idea that in the absence of affirmative action we live in some type of colorblind meritocracy. This is a complete myth.

Links:

Primer on white privilege:

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh

On police searches:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf

On punishment and incarceration for drug possession:

United States - Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs

On the hiring process (abstract, not full academic article)

AEAweb: AER (94,4) p. 991 - Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination

On white privilege in general and specific section on differential classroom experiences:

https://law.wustl.edu/journal/18/p245Wildmanbookpages.pdf

There's a ton of research out there. All you have to do is go and look for it.

Have you even read the .Gov site ( the kind that is factually than your blog post and .com )
Resident gender
In 2002 males were 48% of the U.S.
population age 16 or older but 53% of
the persons experiencing a face-to-face
contact with police and 55% of those
with two or more contacts that year
(table 3).
Resident race/Hispanic origin
Whites made up 73% of the U.S.
population age 16 or older but 77% of
persons with a police contact in 2002.
Black residents age 16 or older made
up about the same percentage of
persons having police contact (11%) as
their percentage of the U.S. population
(12%).
 
Last edited:
I refer you to post 38 and 42.



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.



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.

You're trying to fight racism with more racism. Not all white people have privileges or advantages for being white. If there should be any kind of affirmative action, it should be based on income. Why should I be at a disadvantage for college admission because I'm white or my great granddad went to college so I'm magically ineligible?

There shouldn't even be a race block on applications for things, as race should play absolutely no role whatsoever. No matter how much you whine about how bad you have it, it still comes down to who is the most qualified candidate. If you think minorities are suffering from poor educational opportunities, then let's improve those educational opportunities. Affirmative action does nothing to rectify the initial injustice, it simply screws a random white person over, who had nothing to do with the discrimination whatsoever.

The road to an egalitarian society isn't paved by certain races getting preferential treatment, no matter what race it is.

Sorry Rainman but you're just plain incorrect on this one.

So you're saying he's wrong and YOU have a victimhood mentality? Sorry, you can't punish someone for their ancestors' woes.
 
The other stuff to go along with that post
Residents in their twenties had relatively
high rates of contact with police. In
2002 persons age 20 to 29 were 24.1%
of persons with police contact but
17.2% of the U.S. population age 16 or
older. The mean age of persons age 16
or older with at least one face-to-face
police contact during 2002 was 39; the
median was 37 (not shown in table).
Resident’s description of contact
with police during 2002
Survey respondents who said they had
 
The other stuff to go along with that post
Residents in their twenties had relatively
high rates of contact with police. In
2002 persons age 20 to 29 were 24.1%
of persons with police contact but
17.2% of the U.S. population age 16 or
older. The mean age of persons age 16
or older with at least one face-to-face
police contact during 2002 was 39; the
median was 37 (not shown in table).
Resident’s description of contact
with police during 2002
Survey respondents who said they had

I forgot to addd this

face-to-face contact with police during
2002 were asked to describe the nature
of the contact. If persons had more than
one contact, they were asked only
about their latest (that is, most recent)
contact that year.
2 Contacts between Police and the Public, 2002
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
60 or older 6.8 82.2 11.2 3.4 1.1 2.1 1.42
30-59 41.1 72.4 16.2 6.0 2.2 3.2 1.63
16-29 27.8 65.9% 17.8% 7.7% 3.2% 5.3% 1.83
Age
Other race 2.2 71.8 16.0 5.3 2.2 4.6 1.59
Hispanic 6.8 70.6 17.0 5.8 3.5 3.1 1.61
Black 8.5 71.4 16.1 6.3 2.2 4.0 1.71
White 58.3 71.3% 16.1% 6.4% 2.3% 3.8% 1.68
Race/Hispanic
origin
Female 35.3 72.3 16.5 5.8 1.9 3.5 1.65
Male 40.4 70.3% 16.0% 6.7% 2.9% 4.1% 1.69
 
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.

It seems you had a problem comprehending Pat Buchanan's commentary. He was commenting on a U.S. Naval Academy professor Bruce Fleming's article that ran in the Washington Post. < Naval Academy Professor Challenges Rising Diversity - Washington Post >

It isn't that there aren't enough blacks or Hispanics who have the brains to lead our son's and daughters into combat. It's that those minorities who do have the brains don't want to serve in the military. They would rather earn a degree and go into the private sector and make money.

President Obama on a number of occasions said he plans to change the face of the U.S. military by using social engineering. It's right out of Joseph Stalin's playbook, to redefine the purpose and culture of the military in the name of a socialist political ideology.
 
Due to StillBallins 75 helpful site It has confirmed my belief that age also matters not just race in police matters


In 2002, 75% of all persons age 16 to 19 indicated they were drivers of a motor vehicle. Among persons in their twenties, thirties, forties, or fifties, 90% or more said they drove. Of those age 60 or older, 82% operated a vehicle.
Generally, the younger the driver, the greater the likelihood that he or she was pulled over by police in 2002. The one exception was for teenage drivers and drivers in their twenties, who did not differ
in their likelihood of being stopped by police — 13.6% of drivers age 16 to 19 and 14% of drivers age 20 to 29. For those over age 30, the probability of being stopped by police in 2002 decreased with age: 9.8% of those in their thirties were pulled over by police, 7.8% of those in their forties, 6.8% of those in their fifties, and 3.8% of drivers

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf A Great site I suggest reading it since its un biased and supported by the government not a blog or a .com site or .org
 
You're trying to fight racism with more racism. Not all white people have privileges or advantages for being white. If there should be any kind of affirmative action, it should be based on income. Why should I be at a disadvantage for college admission because I'm white or my great granddad went to college so I'm magically ineligible?

As I've pointed out and provided evidence elsewhere, yes, they do. The fallacy comes into play when poor whites think they don't benefit from privilege. The thing is you're comparing apples to oranges. Poor whites aren't competing with Oprah, they're competing with poor blacks and Latinos.

There shouldn't even be a race block on applications for things, as race should play absolutely no role whatsoever. No matter how much you whine about how bad you have it, it still comes down to who is the most qualified candidate. If you think minorities are suffering from poor educational opportunities, then let's improve those educational opportunities.

Which I'm all for. The reality of the situation is that this is much easier said than done when black communities simply don't have funds and are egregiously neglected by local and municipal governments. When state governments use money from neighboring districts to improve the quality of schools in a disadvantaged area is labeled socialism and unfair. And charter schools and voucher systems can only go so far and are not a universal solution.

Affirmative action does nothing to rectify the initial injustice, it simply screws a random white person over, who had nothing to do with the discrimination whatsoever.

As pointed out earlier, whites benefit from the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow racism and segregation and those benefits haven't simply just vanished into thin air in fifty years.

The road to an egalitarian society isn't paved by certain races getting preferential treatment, no matter what race it is.

I agree, and yet what is not mentioned is that even in the absence of affirmative action whites get preferential treatment whether they like to admit it or not (and actually even with affirmative action policies in place whites STILL enjoy a great deal of preferential treatment in society, which is something that doesn't happen to get a lot of press). Not just in the hiring process but in all aspects of society. Read the links I posted. The myth that somehow an egalitarian society can be achieved simply by adopting de jure colorblind policies is part of the problem. It simply isn't the case - it's sweeping the problem under the rug and refusing to acknowledge that it exists.

So you're saying he's wrong and YOU have a victimhood mentality?

I don't blame white people for my problems but as a minority I notice on a daily basis the privileges that whites enjoy that they seem blind to simply because it's difficult to notice what's not there.

Sorry, you can't punish someone for their ancestors' woes.

If you can even characterize offsetting built-in advantages as "punishment." What you fail to recognize is that even if the white people of today didn't perpetrate slavery and racism and segregation, they certainly still enjoy benefits from it.

If you had bothered to read the link in post #42 that I provided you'd realize that the whole "white people are getting screwed by affirmative action so bad" narrative is completely overblown. Situations in which clearly more qualified individuals are rejected for clearly less qualified candidates go against federal regulations and form the basis for discrimination suits.

And I didn't mean to personally offend you or any white people in my original post. But people who bitch about being screwed by affirmative action while failing to recognize the effects of affirmative action are a drop in the bucket compared to their own privileges tend to rub me the wrong way which is why the post came across as ignorant or rude.
 
Last edited:
Kinda pays to stay in school doesn't it ?

Neither Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs finished college. Few of the wealthiest people are highly educated.
 
Have you even read the .Gov site ( the kind that is factually than your blog post and .com )
Resident gender
In 2002 males were 48% of the U.S.
population age 16 or older but 53% of
the persons experiencing a face-to-face
contact with police and 55% of those
with two or more contacts that year
(table 3).
Resident race/Hispanic origin
Whites made up 73% of the U.S.
population age 16 or older but 77% of
persons with a police contact in 2002.
Black residents age 16 or older made
up about the same percentage of
persons having police contact (11%) as
their percentage of the U.S. population
(12%).

The article states that while minorities were not more likley to be contacted by police (i.e. pulled over or engaged by law enforcement) they were more likely to be searched when stopped. Read the whole thing.
 
The article states that while minorities were not more likley to be contacted by police (i.e. pulled over or engaged by law enforcement) they were more likely to be searched when stopped. Read the whole thing.

So that's the only thing you got from the entire site


Driver age
The younger the driver, the greater the
likelihood of a vehicle search. More
specifically, where significant differences
existed between younger and
older drivers, they were always in the
direction of a greater likelihood of a
vehicle search for the younger drivers.
Vehicles driven by teenage drivers
(8.2%) were more likely to be searched
than vehicles driven by those in their
twenties (5%), thirties (5%), forties
(2.8%), or fifties (1.1%). Perhaps your 8.1 percent is high because of the large amount of teens pulled over As you said read the entire thing
 
So that's the only thing you got from the entire site


Driver age
The younger the driver, the greater the
likelihood of a vehicle search. More
specifically, where significant differences
existed between younger and
older drivers, they were always in the
direction of a greater likelihood of a
vehicle search for the younger drivers.
Vehicles driven by teenage drivers
(8.2%) were more likely to be searched
than vehicles driven by those in their
twenties (5%), thirties (5%), forties
(2.8%), or fifties (1.1%). Perhaps your 8.1 percent is high because of the large amount of teens pulled over As you said read the entire thing

Okay, do you have evidence that young drivers are more prevalent among minorities than whites?
 
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.
Are you kidding me!? Of course we have a privilege for being white in the US. People treat you friendlier and are more trusting of you. Waiters/bartenders, sales clerks, the police, receptionists, bankers/loan officers, and all of them ... I don't think I've ever seen a little old lady cringe and edge away from me clutching her purse. I have NEVER gone into a store and seen the products I use (like hair dye for light verses dark hair) locked up in theft prevention devices, while the product that other people use do not have the same protection. I don't think I ever really get eyed by the sales clerk like I'm going to steal. That's definitely not true for my minority friends. They don't have that privilege. I am really lucky to be white. Really lucky.

Or, said another way ...

 
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.

Of course you do but it doesn't make Buchanan's words any more correct. The man is an outspoken racist bigot and has been for many years.

Twelve Pretty Racist Or Just Crazy Quotes From Pat Buchanan’s New Book | TPMMuckraker

Pundit and MSNBC contributor Pat Buchanan’s new book, “Suicide Of A Superpower,” is a veritable treasure trove of eye-popping assertions about the decline of America at the hand of increased diversity and multiculturalism.
Obama’s White House thus enlisted in the long and successful campaign to expel Christianity from the public square, diminish its presence in our public life, and reduce its role to that of just another religion.

I'm sure some of you agree with the man but such agreement still don't mean ol' Pat ain't a racist
 
more from Buchanan

Before the 1960s, equality meant every citizen enjoyed the same constitutional rights and the equal protection of existing laws. Nothing in the Constitution or federal law mandated social, racial, or gender equality.

Pray tell, how can he write, every citizen enjoys the "same constitutional rights" and follow that claim by saying there is nothing that mandates equality.
 
Are you kidding me!? Of course we have a privilege for being white in the US. People treat you friendlier and are more trusting of you. Waiters/bartenders, sales clerks, the police, receptionists, bankers/loan officers, and all of them ... I don't think I've ever seen a little old lady cringe and edge away from me clutching her purse. I have NEVER gone into a store and seen the products I use (like hair dye for light verses dark hair) locked up in theft prevention devices, while the product that other people use do not have the same protection. I don't think I ever really get eyed by the sales clerk like I'm going to steal. That's definitely not true for my minority friends. They don't have that privilege. I am really lucky to be white. Really lucky.

Or, said another way ...


Eddie Murphy goes undercover - Snotr
 
Okay, do you have evidence that young drivers are more prevalent among minorities than whites?

More to the fact that Their is more than one factor of why people get pulled over and its not about race . People profile for age as well you know . Getting that Minorities ( in your words ) are just being targeting because of the skin pigmentation is not always the case . Its like me getting males are being targeted more than woman from the study . The study does not say the race of the young drivers . Just how the younger the driver the more likely the person is getting pulled over and usually with the younger people we are expected to be worst drivers than the more experienced and that maybe the high number of minorities getting their vehicles searched is not because of race the entire time but of course their age since the age is higher than the minorities .
 
Last edited:
Of course you do but it doesn't make Buchanan's words any more correct. The man is an outspoken racist bigot and has been for many years.



I'm sure some of you agree with the man but such agreement still don't mean ol' Pat ain't a racist

Socialist are always calling anyone who's not a fellow comrade racist or bigots.

True Progressives are racist unless they're a socialist hiding behind progressivism.
 
Back
Top Bottom