Silence on White preferences - Political Forum

Xibit · #1 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 12:27 AM

Just for starters...

Quote:

Office of the Governor | FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - March 3, 1998

Of Washington state workers who have benefited directly from affirmative action, 60 percent are white women, while only 21 percent of beneficiaries are people of color. Since the disabled, Vietnam veterans and disabled veterans also are protected groups under affirmative action, 19 percent of workers who directly benefit from affirmative action are white men.

People typically love to use those worn out hypotheticals "if such and such and so and so is qualified why should..." Well, let's put those dogs to rest.

Quote:

Free Article - WSJ.com

The Office for Civil Rights initially rejected Mr. Li's complaint due to "insufficient" evidence. Mr. Li appealed, citing a white high-school classmate admitted to Princeton despite lower test scores and grades. The office notified him late last month that it would look into the case. His complaint seeks to suspend federal financial assistance to Princeton until the university "discontinues discrimination against Asian-Americans in all forms by eliminating race preferences, legacy preferences, and athlete preferences."

Hmmm.... Just like that U of Michigan thing. Lots of national silence (on these forums at least, comparative speaking) on those White students with lesser GPA's and test scores.

Quote:

Whose battle? New Crisis, The - Find Articles

At Michigan, officials have insisted that all of those who are admitted to the university meet a high level of achievement and performance, even if some students are admitted ahead of others who have higher grades and test scores. In fact, testimony in the case against Michigan showed that there were many white students admitted to the university who had test scores and grades that were lower than plaintiff Jennifer Gratz's. In 1995, the year Gratz applied to UM, of the students admitted with lower scores and grades, 1,243 were white (46.7 percent) and 725 were Black (27.2 percent).

You know, I don't remember seeing/hearing a thing about that when the hearings were TV and the case was in the news. I wonder why...

Quote:

CNN.com - Are legacy college admissions racist? - Mar. 5, 2003

Today, sons and daughters of alumni make up more than 10 percent of students at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. They are 23 percent of the student population at Notre Dame. At the University of Virginia, 11 percent of this year's freshmen class were children of alumni -- and more than 91 percent of them are white.

It would be nice to see a meritocracy. Too bad one does not exist in these United States. I would hope that those who have an axe to grind regarding AA as they imagine it as "racist", etc. would speak at length and with equal fervor about all preferences, real or perceived.

*

Xibit · #2 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Qoute 1: That proves that women (as you have constantly thrown in our face time and time again) benefit from discrimination which I never said was not the case and it proves that there is "veteran discrimination". So what? The white men benefited from being veterans, not white.

And it must have been that constant throwing that got you to modify your claim. Further, your name wasn't posted above nor anything you stated. So what you personally said or "never said" has no bearing on what I posted here. Nevertheless, the facts are clear: Whites aren't being excluded.

Whether as veterans or by gender, Whites benefit from AA; therefore, Whites aren't racially excluded which is, in fact, the very idea a number of people have explicitly stated regarding AA.

Quote:

I don't see how that applies to race based discrimination so I don't see why you underlined it as if to insinuate it does.

The title is "Silence on White preferences." Said another way: "Silence on preferences Whites benefit from." I said nothing about "race based discrimination." That's your terminology not mine. I did refer to the meritocracy notion which is often the plea copped.

Anyway... if AA is race-based? Again, how do White women or men, whether their veterans or not, benefit from AA? By definition that means AA is not as "race-based" as you've asserted.

Quote:

One thing the originator of this thread or anyone who opposes AA has failed to blame is their own ancestors. AA would probably not even exist if discrimination hadn't played such a huge role in American history.

I being black do see race based discrimination as being wrong...

Whites Only Scholarship Creates Outrage

Notice how you failed to mention gender-based discrimination then. Must have been that constant throwing... It took you a while but you got there.

Quote:

Neither of these two are enforced by law and none of these apply soley to whites (how many whites you think got into college for being good at basket ball compared to blacks?)

Relevance? AA doesn't apply solely to any one particular group either. Your point?

As it relates to college sports... (basketball is only one of many), plenty of Whites get in via athletics vs. grades.

Quote:

The Best Education Money Can Buy

In his provocative and stimulating book, The Price of Admission , Golden makes a powerful case that the number of well-to-do whites given preference to highly selective colleges dwarfs that of minorities benefiting from affirmative action. He follows this central theme in a wide-ranging series of case studies of systematic preference for the wealthy, the privileged and the famous, as well as legacies, faculty children and -- most innovatively -- athletes in such patrician sports as rowing, horseback riding, fencing and even polo.

Again the title is: Silence on White preferences.

Quote:

You actually proved one point for me, that Asians are discriminated against...

And I actually proved or rather made the point that Whites are granted preferences "over" Asian-Americans. You and I both know how it's not Whites that most anti-AA people claim to be the one's "taking" opportunities away from Asians. And your diatribe regarding Asians lacks context. And to think, you tried that "you're better off here in America" bs. Transplant selected (and mostly educated) group of African-Americans into another country and you could play that "they come here" song there too. But that wouldn't tell you much about the level Black poverty that would exist among that mostly educated group of Black transplants. The same goes for the various groups of "Asian Americans."

I wonder why Native Americans and Hispanics aren't used as model minorities for all things education and income. I'd also really like to see someone lecture a NA about the "other people" who "come here and..." I'd like to know what the f-ck was going through the lectures mind. I really would because I'd really like to know what he thought his point was and why he felt he needed to lecture NA's.

Quote:

That doesn't seem to stop them from making more money and graduating from school more...

Okay. Say that again real nice and loud. Only this time say it like this:

For those who believed Whites are discriminated against by Blacks, e.g., via AA... AA doesn't seem to stop Whites from making more money and graduating from school more often than Blacks; so I don't see what all the fuss is about here.

*

Xibit · #3 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

I never modified my claim.

When you first reference to AA claimed that it was race-based discrimination and then only after having WHITE WOMEN constantly thrown in your face did you acknowledge them... That's clear evidence that you modified your claim and the very fact that you stated how WHITE WOMEN were thrown in "our" face (who is the OUR? You and all the other posters that were attacking AA strictly based on the race-based idea?) is a clear indication that you took the cue to modify your claim from me.

Now the next thing for this group you called "our" is to make sure the implicit race-based claims (i.e. the idea that AA is "taking" opportunities from Whites) are justified, since you want to carry on the same conversation from the old thread. Again, the title of this thread is: SILENCE ON WHITE PREFERENCES.

I'll leave you to choke on the comparisons you're imagining.

The simple point here is the public outrage is NOT over (WHITE) WOMEN when it comes to AA but, rather, the outrage itself (see the title of the last thread) is RACE-BASED disregarding not only the "gender preferences" but the fact that WHITES, e.g., are not having opportunities "taken" from them; WHITE WOMEN (they are not race-less) benefit from AA. Because of that their arguments (I don't give a damn whether it's yours) fall flat.

Quote:

I said that discrimination is race based and you have not proven that it is not

If AA also includes gender considerations then claiming AA is race-discrimination is not an accurate description. Plain and simple. You did just what others did and only focused on the "race-based" aspect. So your question complicates your own statements.

Quote:

Like a said a few hours ago I'm black and I'm against race based preferences but have no problem with class based one's.... I agree with Ceci (or at least I believe she's the one) that the amount of special privilages blacks, Indians and Hispanics have recieved in the past few decades does not compare to years of slavery and stolen land.... AA should not focus on improving the quality of living for any particular race because that only help to maintain racial division in the first place.

Conspiculously absent AGAIN is any mention from of WHITE WOMEN or gender-based considerations. You did NOT say "AA should not focus on any particular gender/sex." You failed to mention it. You obviously modified your claim.

Now, since AA includes gender considerations then those opposed to "discrimination" only show how race-based their claims are when there are no (WHITE) MEN ONLY SCHOLARSHIPS and such outrage over what would be called SEXISM or sex/gender-based discrimination. It's as if a number anti-AA Whites are okay with WHITE WOMEN (they're White, too) because it "keeps it in the family." Hmmm...

Enough of that.

Quote:

You say that you want to use AA to balance out any percieved racial inequalities right?

Quote me on that. Don't try to frame my argument or, rather, things I've said to fit your how you want to see my position. You know exactly what I stated. And if you felt that I had stated that I "want to use AA"... you wouldn't have mentioned reparations. Get that stuff straight in your head first then come back.

Quote:

Doesn't that require a race based solution?

I said that it is incumbent on the government to correct the RACIAL INEQUALITY. I never said nor do I believe that something as anemic as AA even begins to do that. You've never heard me state what I thought AA does or what I really think about AA.

As for CORRECTING the race-based, RACIAL INEQUALITY... Well, by definition, yes. The government sanctioned, participated, allowed, etc. RACE-BASED "THEFT" against African Americans, e.g. So I don't see what's the problem. To correct the RACIAL INEQUALITY and balance the equation... You know what I said:

Whatever value is added/subtracted to one side of the equation must also be added/subtracted to the other side of the equation.

This is real simple math. And, IMO, AA has nothing to do with that. You're obviously have problems following along. I questioned ICE on his "gap will close" comment. That was a different discussion than the one on AA. Again, you know that. That's why you mentioned reparations. You understand the difference.

I argued that those who were against AA couldn't show how AA was "taking" opportunities away from Whites. That's what I argued. I never made any statement about how I wanted to use AA.

Quote:

Athletism based scholarships apply to athletes only right? But do only athletes benefit? No because the school can sale tickets to a game and make money off of it which could indirectly effect other students. No it doesn't and it doesn't have to apply to only one group. So then that means athlete based admission is not solely athlete based according to your logic.

Read what you said. Ha! Ha! I guess we can get someone in here to make the argument that Diversity Matters and how Whites benefit from a "critical mass" of other racial/ethnic groups in the whole college experience. lol

And it's your curious logic that made the weird argument that athletic admissions aren't based on athletics. What else are they based on? Unlike AA which is based on a number of selection criteria, athletic admissions are indeed based on one selection criteria: the athlete. The benefits of athletic programs to colleges opens up a whole can of worms you don't won't to deal with.

Funny how you would make that type of an argument to justify athletics but apparently never considered that approach to explaining the benefits of AA. And now that I'm thinking about it...

Gender bias in college admissions | csmonitor.com

No commentary needed. Just the fact that there is concerns and people talking about it strikes of big irony.

Quote:

But my original point was that athletism and legacy, both of which were underlined are not race based therefore they cannot be used to claim that they are deliberately geared towards whites.

This makes even less sense than the previous quote. There was no such claim. There was a clarification: The title is "Silence on White preferences." Said another way: "Silence on preferences Whites benefit from."

Quote:

And? It still isn't race based and therefore it doesn't apply.

Doesn't apply to what? Some comparisons YOU want to draw?
The title is "Silence on White preferences." Said another way: "Silence on preferences Whites benefit from."

AA isn't "race-based." Race is not the defining character of the consideration for AA. The definition basis includes a number of considerations which include veteran status, age, gender and "underrepresented" minority status. So, properly put, AA is BASED on all those things and not any one particular criteria. But, funny how people, including you, only voice their disagreement with what they call "race-based."

Funny how it took you a long time to acknowledge (WHITE) WOMEN. Funny how you made no disclaimer statement announcing how you were against gender-focused AA. Now, the law also specifies no discrimination based on gender but you and other anti-AA people have little to say about that. As noted (and proven), you only modified your position after having that constantly thrown in your face.

Quote:

You are bringing up something from another debate proving that this thread is nothing, but part 2.

That's obviously what you wanted to talk about.

The title is "Silence on White preferences." Said another way: "Silence on preferences Whites benefit from."

You had every opportunity to respond to this thread without alluding to the other. You had every opportunity to treat it as separate from the other but you didn't. Your immediate reaction was:

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I never said AA was racists I said it was discriminatory.

You wanted to talk about what "you never said" WHEN? What "you never said" WHERE?

I rest my case. Now, since you act like you have an issue with a Part 2 discussion, address this thread in the context of my remarks posted here. Not what you think I said on the other thread. Hmmm.....

Quote:

You say that you want to use AA to balance out any percieved racial inequalities right?

Hmmm... Now I wonder WHERE you got the idea?

Deal with what I have said and posted here:

It would be nice to see a meritocracy. Too bad one does not exist in these United States. I would hope that those who have an axe to grind regarding AA as they imagine it as "racist", etc. would speak at length and with equal fervor about all preferences, real or perceived.

That's the context for you to consider and respond to. Respond to it or not. That's your choice. Just don't call this Part 2 when it's YOU who want to frame this thread under the misguided notions your formed in the other thread.

Again, you had every opportunity to treat this thread independently from the other. You chose not to do that. I merely obliged you.

Quote:

So is legacy and athletic based discrimination wrong or right?

My purpose for this thread was to show that there is not (an academic-based) meritocracy and to show how Whites benefit from non-merit based preferences and other considerations. Maybe I edited my post before you saw it but the 3rd quote in my header post gives an example of the other (ostensibly) non-merit considerations.

I posted it in the other thread and reposted it again because it continues to be something people avoid/ignore. Just like in the Hopwood case, because AA is stereotyped as "racial discrimination", people overlook the actual facts.

The AA/college admissions standards debate surrounding the UM case hardly ever spoke to the facts which showed how 46.7% of the students with lower grades and scores who were admitted in the year Jennifer Gratz didn't get admitted were White. No one went after those White students. That, in and of itself, is a White preference - a White privilege.

You don't hear people suggesting that those White students shouldn't have gotten in or any allusions to how they were not "qualified." Apparently their grades/scores didn't "qualify" them... So why the silence?

Xibit · #4 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Okay. Say that again real nice and loud. Only this time say it like this:

For those who believed Whites are discriminated against by Blacks, e.g., via AA... AA doesn't seem to stop Whites from making more money and graduating from school more often than Blacks; so I don't see what all the fuss is about here.

And the fact that whites discriminate against Asians (as you have clearly pointed out) who don't even apply for AA, doesn't seem to stop Asians from making more money and graduating from school more often then whites now does it. You are the one making a fuss.

Your response doesn't make sense. You're repeating what you already said and acting as if you can't recognize me using your own logic to say something you obviously never ventured to say or considered.

Now, go ahead. Tell the White posters here that very thing:

AA doesn't seem to stop Whites from making more money and graduating from school more often than Blacks...
so I don't see the argument here.

Don't discriminate. Disseminate. Preach the same message across the board.

Let's see you do that or explain the reason for you "it doesn't stop them" statement. The same thing holds true for the substitution I presented but, for some reason, you've never directed a statement like that to Whites when referring to AA. You've noted how AA doesn't compare to historical (and, perhaps, on-going) discrimination against "minorities" but you've never told Whites "I don't see the argument here (against AA)" under that "it doesn't stop..." logic.

That would be you proving my point. If AA doesn't stop Whites (or Asian Americans)? Where is the discrimination? Where is the substantive argument that Whites, e.g., are being disadvantaged... having opportunities "taken" away from them?

All the noted White preferences (i.e. the preferences Whites benefit from) paint a different picture. Whites virtually rack up in that department but want to complain about AA even in situations where lower scoring Whites get admitted ahead of a "better" qualified White student (Gratz)... even when (upper) class-based considerations factor in them (Hopwood) not getting admitted.

I guess it's easy to make Blacks (and that's who people mention most) the scapegoat. Always has been. But thanks for making my argument, Rodog.

*

Xibit · #5 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

created a new thread a few minutes after the other one was shut down and now claim this to be completely different issue even though it still involves the issue of race

I only stated that this is a different topic - one you could have treated as such but YOU didn't. Don't put it on me. Again, your immediate reaction:

Quote:

2 : the principal component of something

Race is not "THE" principal component of AA. I'll spare myself the task of explain the term "THE" (or principal) to you in terms on your level of understanding. I'll also save you the embarrassment of highlighting that bs you posted re: athletes and everything/one who benefits from those admissions.

Quote:

The concept is BASED on RACE.

AA for (WHITE) WOMEN is based on race? Okay. AA is based on the (WHITE) WOMAN race then. lol
That's proof that: Race (meaning Black, White, etc.) is not "THE" principal component of AA.

It is as I said:

Race is not the defining character of the consideration for AA. The [defining] basis includes a number of considerations which include veteran status, age, gender and "underrepresented" minority status. So, properly put, AA is BASED on all those things and not any one particular criteria.

You are doing yourself a disservice. You have run out of angles to justify your idea that AA is based on RACE. AA is, rather, based on the concept of supplying opportunities for people who fit into a category of historically excluded (and therefore under-served) or those who are current underrepresented. That's how AA can and does include veterans, the disabled and all of the above.

THE CONCEPT IS NOT BASED ON RACE. It's based on those consideration I lined out which readily explains, again, AA opportunities given to veterans, the disabled and women of ALL 'RACES.'

If AA was based on race then it would not have categories where ALL RACES qualify.

Xibit · #6 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

Someone else on this forum said something akin to "speaking reason with a person who will not listen is like administering medicine to the dead."

So that's why the math equations were avoided? Okay. Thanks for the explanation.

Quote:

If you think that AA can't possibly be based on one thing because it is also based on another then answer these elementary questions.

This is ridiculous...

Can a tv show not be based on drama and comedy? Sure. But a TV show with both drama and comedy as PRINCIPAL components is noted as such, whether it's called a "dramedy" or not. TV shows can also be based on one or the other. It would be inaccurate to say that a Drama - Comedy film is "based" on Comedy when it is based on and categorized as BOTH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...dy-drama_films

Can a science fiction show be based on science and fiction? Sci Fi? You're getting yourself twisted and fighting against yourself. I've essentially said that AA is neither science based nor fiction based but fits in the SCI FI category vs. one or the other alone.

You're struggling to stay on or find a point.

Xibit · #7 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 01:13 PM

Rodog,

Now if you're trying to say that, in your opinion, "racial discrimination" occurs with SOME applications of AA, then say that. But, as soon as you do, consider what's been noted in this thread regarding how Whites rack up with the privileges and make sure you take this attitude and make this speech:

AA doesn't seem to stop Whites from making more money and graduating from school more often than Blacks...
so I don't see the argument here.

Xibit · #8 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

You have completely misconstrued everything I said.

This coming from the guy who posed (a number of) ignorant rhetorical question(s), made a number of unwarranted stereotypical assertions and entered this thread assuming it was about the other and that I was making comparisons (to suit his argument).

EXAMPLE:

You say that you want to use AA to balance out any percieved racial inequalities right?

Rodog knows he has little if anything to *ahem* BASE his rhetorical, leading, framing question-suggestion-claim on. Thou shalt never use the word "misconstrue" when that is the thing thou doest religiously.

But, I'll take the bait...

>>>>>> WHAT DID I MISCONSTRUE, RODOG? <<<<<<

I can't help it if you got to reachin' on my court (back to the basketball theme) and, being the pro-player that I am... I got to teachin'!!

What did I misconstrue re: "Dramedy"

Once again, AA is not based on race. Race is not "THE" principal, defining characteristic of AA. This is born out by the fact that WHITE WOMEN, as the 1st Quote here in this thread demonstrates rather easily:

AA BENEFICIARIES (from 1st Quote)

60% - White women
21% - POC (people of color)
19% - White men (disabled, Vietnam vets, disabled vets)

Now, I see your definitions and only need to raise you one:

3 a : the fundamental part of something : GROUNDWORK, BASIS
2 : the principal component of something

"PRINCIPAL" ___ most important, consequential, or influential : chief <the principal ingredient> <the region's principal city> (Webster's on-line)

Hmmm.... With well over 70% of the beneficiaries in the Wash. St. case receiving non-race related benefits, it is completely contrary to the facts, all common-sense and reality to say that AA IS RACE-BASED.

Again, if you're trying to make the argument that you believe that racial discrimination occurs as a result of AA, make that argument but recognize that it is not the same thing as saying what the FUNDAMENTAL, PRINCIPAL and MOST CONSEQUENTIAL aspect of AA is. With the FACTS above, it is GENDER not RACE that is the most consequential. So, if anything, AA is GENDER BASED.

But that's not my position. AA is as I said:
AA is based on the concept of supplying opportunities for people who fit into a category of the historically excluded (and therefore underserved) or those who are current[ly] underrepresented.

Now, if you want to make the argument that AA is responsible for "racial discrimination" then, go fight yourself:

AA doesn't seem to stop Whites from making more money and graduating from school more often than Blacks...

So, step up to the plate and answer the question: WHERE IS THE SUBSTANTIVE DISCRIMINATION? Where is the evidence that Whites, e.g., are losing or having opportunities "taken" from them if it were not for the race considerations aspect of AA?

When we look at all the preferences Whites, e.g., benefit from, one would be hard pressed to find evidence of Whites, e.g., not having opportunities or being excluded from opportunities (and WHITE WOMEN are indeed WHITE and count as such).

BOTH White women and White men benefit from AA in significant numbers.
That kind of phenomenon was absent and didn't occur pre-Civil Rights when it came to Black people. The RACIAL DISCRIMINATION of that day was absolute. When Blacks were subjected to racial discrimination, Blacks didn't, at the same time, benefit (i.e. receive significant consideration or opportunities) from the same thing that discriminated against them. When Blacks were discriminated against they were EXCLUDED not INCLUDED.

With that as the contextual, historical, FACTUAL backdrop of what discrimination really is: AA is a strange animal in that it is said to discriminate (EXCLUDE) on the basis of race while, at the same time, INCLUDING virtually ALL RACES, especially the very "race" of people who resent it most - Whites.

Xibit · #9 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodog

You are just cherry-picking evidence to support your theory.

First... What is my "theory"...? Second, point to the cherries I picked and make sure you didn't overlook things do the same thing. It would be easy to show how you have, so you know I'm considering the source on this one.

Quote:

AA is based on the application of race and gender and other factors

That's a different statement from what you tried to say. You said AA IS RACE-BASED and tried to argue that it wasn't BASED ON ALL THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS. In fact, you said all those factors/considerations DON'T MATTER:

What is the basis of AA? It does not matter if white women benefit or black people benefit or white men benefit or Asian people benefit. The concept is BASED on RACE.

Now, if you didn't know, now you... KNOW HOW I DO.

On the question of: What is the basis of AA?

Rodog answers: The concept is BASED on RACE. It does not matter if white women benefit or black people benefit or white men benefit or Asian people benefit.

Rodog changes his mind then says: AA is based on the application of race and gender and other factors

SO WHICH ONE IS IT, RODOG? Is AA based on race? Or is it based on race AND gender AND other factors? WHICH ONE IS IT?

You wanted to argue. You wanted to differ. You wanted to disagree with me saying: AA is BASED on all those things and not any one particular criteria. Then that's when you closed fist and punched yourself hard in the face.

Trying to be cute, you messed around and got POSTERIZED (I told you I SLAM DUNK!):

Can a tv show not be based on drama and comedy? Dramedy?
Sure. But a TV show with both drama and comedy as PRINCIPAL components is noted as such, whether it's called a "dramedy" or not. TV shows can also be based on one or the other. It would be inaccurate to say that a Drama - Comedy film is "based" on Comedy when it is based on and categorized as BOTH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...dy-drama_films

Now >>> WHAT DID I MISCONSTRUE? The Wiki reference is right there for you to view. Comedy-Dramas are indeed CATEGORIZED as I said and are named and said to be BASED on not one but BOTH (all) component parts, not one or the other.

So your assertion (The concept is BASED on RACE) is counter to the reality and the analogies you tried to put up to 'block' what I said.

You just got POSTERIZED!!!

Quote:

It does not matter if EVERYone benefited from AA.

How come it doesn't? The idea of a RACE being discriminated against conveys the idea that said RACE is being EXCLUDED. That's what race-based discrimination is. (See Slavery & Jim Crow)

Whites via WHITE WOMEN (described/said to be the main beneficiaries of AA) by definition DISPROVE the claim, especially given how much they have benefitted.

Quote:

In the end it does not change the FACT that AA is based on race discrimination.

There has to be a RACE that's EXCLUDED for it to accurately be described and proven to be

Quote:

IN THIS COUNTRY BEING BLACK IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO FAIL.

Ha! Ha!

Quote:

IF YOU HAVE A COMPUTER THEN YOU ARE WELL ENOUGH TO SUCCEED ON YOUR OWN AND YOU DON'T NEED HANDICAPS GIVEN TO YOU BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DO SO.

Double... Ha! Ha!!

And this from someone who wanted to mention INFLAMMATORY comments.

Quote:

SO GET OFF YOUR ASS (((GOYA))) AND MAKE SOMETHING OF YOURSELF IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BECAUSE NO AMOUNT OF HELP FROM THE WHITE FOLKS WILL MAKE SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T WANT TO WORK WORK

You mentioned "breakdown".... TELLING!

Now, I was wondering.... I was wondering if someone gave this speech to Colin Powell. Now that would be nice. That would show the sure lunacy of the LOGICAL FALLACY of trying to associate a position someone takes on a social/political issue, conveniently, with some motive-failing the person has. Anything to make people who don't have the skills to sustain debate and present sound arguments feel good, I guess.

I also guess that, at some point, Colin Powell needed to GET OFF HIS ASS and denounce his support for AA. There was no way he could be SOS and support AA. People who support AA (or, in this case, people who argue that there is no substantive argument against AA), do so, because they don't want to work, according to RODOG and other assorted posters.

Thanks, RODOG. Thanks for openly admitting defeat.

*

Xibit · #10 (**permalink**) 08-04-2007, 11:10 PM

Now... BACK TO THE TOPIC

91% of Legacies = WHITES

In most cases (if not all) Legacy admits account for more than AA which, as noted, also includes Whites who, arguably, benefit the most from AA anyway (via White women, disabled Whites and White vets).

So, as I stated, "Whites are racking up." For some reason, though, all these "preferences" that Whites benefit from and "take" the lion-share of don't get included in most of the public debate/discourse.