Is Bush A Racist?

[5stringJeff]

RWA, therein lies the fundemental difference between conservatives and liberals. For you and I, fairness is everyone getting the job/position they can on the merits of their abilities. For liberals like LoneVoice, fairness is all about every demographic matching up with the racial/gender/sexual preference balance of America, regardless of ability to perform or succeed at that position.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Imagine putting Colin Powell in the lower rungs of the black minority population, or Rice as a black woman, or gale norton.......wait. lets leave her out of it. :cof:

 

[5stringJeff]

Colin Powell has all the respect in the world from me. The child of immigrants, he rose to be the highest ranking officer in the strongest military on Earth - then became Secretary of State!!! Regardless of his political views, Colin Powell should be a role model and inspiration to every American.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
The overall picture? You wouldn't know the big picture if it bit half your dipstick off. You illogically reduce the concept of fairness to mean "being comprised of equal numbers of individuals of all races". How about treating individuals fairly and letting the chips fall where they may? I think that unless white children are actively being discriminated against you'll just never be happy.

Once again... you're ignoring all the facts.

There are 2 approaches to eliminating discrimination.
1. You're proposing to attempt to remove discriminations on a 1 by 1, case by case basis. This has been the slow process for much of history. If you were able to put some finite # to discrimination. Hypothetically, let's say 100. Then your process would be, we are 100% discriminatory, now we have an issue come forward, we address it, and at some point eventually we resolve it (Note: any of those steps may get turned down numerous times along the way). Now, we're only 99% discriminatory. Do it all over again, and now we're 98% discriminatory. And so forth. With this approach, the ones discriminated against, are consistently held back, until finally, one day, maybe we reach that end of the rainbow.

2. Whereas affirmative actions restores the natural balance by providing additional access to all. Once that balance has been restored, we'll allow natural process to take over. Then we'll let the chips fall as they may. This is a more realistic approach towards the successful inclusion of all, as affirmative action has already proven to do so. It has accelerated the rate towards the proverbial, elimination of discrimination (let's be fair to all now), that you and your constituents engender to espouse.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
RWA, therein lies the fundemental difference between conservatives and liberals. For you and I, fairness is everyone getting the job/position they can on the merits of their abilities. For liberals like LoneVoice, fairness is all about every demographic matching up with the racial/gender/sexual preference balance of America, regardless of ability to perform or succeed at that position.

Why do you say that like they are mutually exclusive?

Is it possible that both can occur? Getting the job/position on merits, and demographics matching up.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Colin Powell has all the respect in the world from me. The child of immigrants, he rose to be the highest ranking officer in the strongest military on Earth - then became Secretary of State!!! Regardless of his political views, Colin Powell should be a role model and inspiration to every American.

Let's ask Colin Powell if he's encountered racially discriminatory walls within his lifetime, that have aimed at holding back/restricting his success. If that has happened, wouldn't we want to listen to his suggestions on different approaches that would help to eliminate those discriminations.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Once again... you're ignoring all the facts.

There are 2 approaches to eliminating discrimination.
1. You're proposing to attempt to remove discriminations on a 1 by 1, case by case basis. This has been the slow process for much of history. If you were able to put some finite # to discrimination. Hypothetically, let's say 100. Then your process would be, we are 100% discriminatory, now we have an issue come forward, we address it, and at some point eventually we resolve it (Note: any of those steps may get turned down numerous times along the way). Now, we're only 99% discriminatory. Do it all over again, and now we're 98% discriminatory. And so forth. With this approach, the ones discriminated against, are consistently held back, until finally, one day, maybe we reach that end of the rainbow.

2. Whereas affirmative actions restores the natural balance by providing additional access to all. Once that balance has been restored, we'll allow natural process to take over. Then we'll let the chips fall as they may. This is a more realistic approach towards the successful inclusion of all, as affirmative action has already proven to do so. It has accelerated the rate towards the proverbial, elimination of discrimination (let's be fair to all now), that you and your constituents engender to espouse.

This is so stupid. Let me tell you why. Your approach violates individuals rights. Does that compute with you? There is simply no justification for intentionally instituting racial discrimination with the justification that it is necessary to prevent ongoing instances of oppression which, while actually an unknown, you presume are burgeoning out of control. I don't see it. I see lots of tolerance. And I've lived in the hood. East side! Let me give a shout out to my peeps in the 770, and 404. playa! playa!

 

[sitarro]

Hey DK ,
I like your new avatar choice but why didn't you choose a superior American made fighter like the F-18 rather than the British Harrier ?

 

[DKSuddeth]

I was a marine air traffic controller stationed at cherry point for most of my tour. Thats pretty much all we had was harriers. The A-6 is just too ugly and who wants to see a C-130?

 

[LoneVoice]

It's really kind of an interesting argument.

Historical fact has shown that the majority of the discriminatory practices in the US have come from the oppressive majority (primarily white, male, Christian fundamentalists).

When it comes to what solutions are best working to resolve these discriminatory practices:
Many of you'd rather listen to those very same oppressive majority opinions.
Many of you continue to ignore the comments from the ones most affected by those discriminatory practices.

Historically, an overwhelming amount of discrimination has been inflicted on various minorities groups, thus giving an unfair advantage to a particular group of people. But, when something comes up, that could arguably be considered discriminatory towards that oppressive majority group, for some reason that is the primary discrimination that must be removed.

Let's have an order to the process. Since affirmative action is an anti-discriminatory practice (essentially discrimination against discrimination). Let's eliminate the historical discriminatory practices. When we've succeeded with that, then I agree, let's then eliminate all the anti-discriminatory practices.

To remove the anti-discriminatory practices before resolving the discrimination that it's aimed to address, is in effect discriminatory.


Obviously, your arguments will be the fantasy version, of let's eliminate all discriminations (discriminations and anti-discriminations). Ultimately, I agree with that argument. For some reason, you want to start with the anti-discriminations. Let's resolve the discriminations, then let's eliminate the anti-discriminations.

With that approach we can all responsibly work together.

 

[sitarro]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Let's ask Colin Powell if he's encountered racially discriminatory walls within his lifetime, that have aimed at holding back/restricting his success. If that has happened, wouldn't we want to listen to his suggestions on different approaches that would help to eliminate those discriminations.

`

I am sure that Secretary of State Powell has encountered discrimination , he obviously didn't allow it to effect his life . He instead , earned his way to one of the highest ranks in the military and now is one of the most powerful persons on the planet . Amazing how that can happen with such an oppresive majority trying to keep him down .
What you seem to forget lonevoice , is the fact that women have only recently in history become such a force in the workplace . My mother's job was that of a homemaker . She raised six kids while her husband brought home the money while serving his country in the military . That was the norm just 40 years ago . I can remember 30 years ago having to compete with women in the workplace for the first time . Affirmative action made sure that lessor qualified females got the job . How things have changed in just 30 years . Society deals with these things naturally , when you try to artificially change things , people get hurt . It doesn't happen all at once , it takes time for society to get used to changes . I don't think that it makesanyone inherently racist.
My dad was raised in the twenties and thirties , I remember a couple of years ago going to a pizza place with him . He made the incredible mistake of calling our waitress sweety , you would have sworn that he had spit on her . He didn't mean anything bad by this he was 75 years old and that is how he spoke most of his life. I , on the other hand , was raised from the sixties to now and wouldn't think of calling a waitress sweety . The point is . . . you can't look at history with todays eyes and get a realistic picture of how things were . You can't place todays standards on the people in history , it doesn't work. My father meant no disrespect , on the contrary , he felt he was being nice .
I am sure that you will now tell me how incoherent I am but I have never claimed to be a master bater . . . ugh I mean master debater like you . I just write what comes to me when it comes to me , if you are interested you follow along if not I just really don't care , that's just me . I still think I get my point across even if you don't get it .

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Why do you say that like they are mutually exclusive?

Is it possible that both can occur? Getting the job/position on merits, and demographics matching up.

If that happens on its own, that's great. But you are still ignoring my main argument about affirmative action:
1. Affirmative action is discrimination.
2. Discrimination is wrong.
3. Therefore, affirmative action is wrong.

 

[sitarro]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I was a marine air traffic controller stationed at cherry point for most of my tour. Thats pretty much all we had was harriers. The A-6 is just too ugly and who wants to see a C-130?

Good point , the A-6 is extraordinarily ugly except to the guys that fly them . I understand that they are incredibly tuff aircraft and highly effective a lot like the A-10 . The C-130 is another great workhorse but not very sexy .The Harrier is pretty cool and it does look great in the photo .

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
If that happens on its own, that's great. But you are still ignoring my main argument about affirmative action:
1. Affirmative action is discrimination.
2. Discrimination is wrong.
3. Therefore, affirmative action is wrong.

Agreed...
1. After you address the discriminations.
2. Then we can address the anti-discriminations of affirmative action.

Let's all work together to address step 1.
Then let's all work together to address step 2.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by sitarro
`

I am sure that Secretary of State Powell has encountered discrimination , he obviously didn't allow it to effect his life . He instead , earned his way to one of the highest ranks in the military and now is one of the most powerful persons on the planet . Amazing how that can happen with such an oppresive majority trying to keep him down .
What you seem to forget lonevoice , is the fact that women have only recently in history become such a force in the workplace . My mother's job was that of a homemaker . She raised six kids while her husband brought home the money while serving his country in the military . That was the norm just 40 years ago . I can remember 30 years ago having to compete with women in the workplace for the first time . Affirmative action made sure that lessor qualified females got the job . How things have changed in just 30 years . Society deals with these things naturally , when you try to artificially change things , people get hurt . It doesn't happen all at once , it takes time for society to get used to changes . I don't think that it makesanyone inherently racist.
My dad was raised in the twenties and thirties , I remember a couple of years ago going to a pizza place with him . He made the incredible mistake of calling our waitress sweety , you would have sworn that he had spit on her . He didn't mean anything bad by this he was 75 years old and that is how he spoke most of his life. I , on the other hand , was raised from the sixties to now and wouldn't think of calling a waitress sweety . The point is . . . you can't look at history with todays eyes and get a realistic picture of how things were . You can't place todays standards on the people in history , it doesn't work. My father meant no disrespect , on the contrary , he felt he was being nice .
I am sure that you will now tell me how incoherent I am but I have never claimed to be a master bater . . . ugh I mean master debater like you . I just write what comes to me when it comes to me , if you are interested you follow along if not I just really don't care , that's just me . I still think I get my point across even if you don't get it .

Much of what you say, I agree with.

We have to be able to recognize your stories. We also have to recognize Powell's stories. We also have to recognize the stories of those who have had discriminations against them throughout US history. Also, we have to recognize the stories of those who have inflicted those discriminations.

Then we have to look at the whole picture and determine what is the most effective way to address the issues for our society as a whole. That's what policy making is supposed to be about. That's how it works.

 

[lilcountriegal]

Then we have to look at the whole picture and determine what is the most effective way to address the issues for our society as a whole.

No matter how you look at it, fighting discrimination with discrimination is not going to work.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
It's really kind of an interesting argument.

Historical fact has shown that the majority of the discriminatory practices in the US have come from the oppressive majority (primarily white, male, Christian fundamentalists).

When it comes to what solutions are best working to resolve these discriminatory practices:
Many of you'd rather listen to those very same oppressive majority opinions.
Many of you continue to ignore the comments from the ones most affected by those discriminatory practices.

Historically, an overwhelming amount of discrimination has been inflicted on various minorities groups, thus giving an unfair advantage to a particular group of people. But, when something comes up, that could arguably be considered discriminatory towards that oppressive majority group, for some reason that is the primary discrimination that must be removed.

Let's have an order to the process. Since affirmative action is an anti-discriminatory practice (essentially discrimination against discrimination). Let's eliminate the historical discriminatory practices. When we've succeeded with that, then I agree, let's then eliminate all the anti-discriminatory practices.

To remove the anti-discriminatory practices before resolving the discrimination that it's aimed to address, is in effect discriminatory.


Obviously, your arguments will be the fantasy version, of let's eliminate all discriminations (discriminations and anti-discriminations). Ultimately, I agree with that argument. For some reason, you want to start with the anti-discriminations. Let's resolve the discriminations, then let's eliminate the anti-discriminations.

With that approach we can all responsibly work together.

All logic and reason are just in one ear and out the other with you, aren't they? Your idiotic policy of discrimination to fight discrimination only heightens whatever racial resentments already exist. I know this is part of the dem vote buying strategy, but you make me physically ill.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by lilcountriegal
No matter how you look at it, fighting discrimination with discrimination is not going to work.

So far, Affirmative Action has proven to have worked. It has effectively accelerated the process to the natural balance. Statistics have demonstrated this since its enactment.

Heck, as your GOP friends have mentioned, Condoleeza Rice is a prime example of the process working.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Your idiotic policy of discrimination to fight discrimination only heightens whatever racial resentments already exist.

You know what your main point is.... It heighten the racial resentments from the oppressive majority.

If you look at history, obviously the racial resentments from the oppressed minority have been largely heightened.

Maybe the legislation is serving to balance the racial resentments on both sides of the aisle. Now, that both sides of the aisle are experiencing those racial resentments, that may help to add urgency to remove the discriminations, so that we can then remove the anti-discriminations as well.


Follow the history.
First came the discriminations.
Next came the anti-discriminations.

The next logical course of actions,
Remove the discriminations,
Next remove the anti-discriminations.

At that point, all those points about removing discriminations for all, makes sense.

 

[sitarro]

How is Condoleeza Rice an example , she was graduating from the University if Denver at 15 years old , what would she need government sponsored affirmative action for . Her own affirmative actions propelled her to greatness , she didn't need any governmental help .

This is her statement on affirmative action. . .

"When the President decided to submit an amicus brief, he asked for my view on how diversity can be best achieved on university campuses. I offered my view, drawing on my experience in academia and as provost of a major university. I agree with the President's position, which emphasizes the need for diversity and recognizes the continued legacy of racial prejudice, and the need to fight it. The President challenged universities to develop ways to diversify their populations fully. I believe that while race neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body."

Ms. Rice obviously wasn't effected by the people around her that said that she was just trying to be white by excelling in academics . She like General Powell would have succeeded nomatter what , they have the drive to succeed .