Okay, now Bush is just flat out lying

[Ned]

I once went into a Chicano (sp?) neighborhood in LA to pick up a date. When I got out of my car, the people scattered. No one would answer their doors or help me with directions. (I was a bit lost.)

Later my date said that the only Anglos the people ever saw in the neighborhood were bill collectors.

Itialian bill collectors, perhaps?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
the only Anglos the people ever saw in the neighborhood were bill collectors.

What?? No white lawyers and doctors went into this neighborhood. Well, if white doctors and lawyers won't serve Hispanic neighborhoods, then we should take steps to assure that there are enough minority...whoops, sorry we can't do that. It's racism.

[BTW Ned, you spelled Chicano correctly]

[DinoDoc]

Zkribbler, you actually know doctors that make house calls?!?!

[Zkribbler]

Well, not house calls, but sometimes their offices are located somewhere other than Beverly Hills.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Sauce for the goose. If you take the silly position that every black person in a white neighborhood is scrutinized because of their race then you can't argue against the equally false example.

I took no such position, now did I?

I was only concerned wih refuting the untrue notion that Harlem is a dangerous area. It's a vibrant area of New York that is home to some of the city's best cultural institutions. And it's reasonably safe, even for whites.

So stuff your goose.

[DuncanK]

I'll get to GWB.

First, in order for our democracy to treat everyone equally people have to have equal access to resources. The fact is that minorities are descriminated against. Now, what do we do in the short run to remedy that. The least we can do is AA. If we don't we can't claim to even try to be democratic. In this country votes are not the only thing that matters. Money and access also matter. Just giving minorities the right to vote is not enough to make a democratic society as long as there is descrimination.

As far as GWB and the rest of the opponents of AA go. They always say they want everyone to be treated equally so they are against AA. They know, as well as everyone else, that people are not treated equally. So, they lie until they come up with some other argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What I mean is that Republicans (much moreso than Democrats) tend to use arguments that are not the *real* reasons for the things they support because the *real* reasons would not atract a majority of voters. I mean when they argue for a tax cut that will benefit all, when 90% of the benefits go to the top 10% of people. I mean when Bush argues against affirmative action because it is "reverse racism" when he knows that without it college-availability will be limited to mostly rich white kids because the minority students are coming through poorly-supported inner city schools and will not do as well on SAT tests.

I mean when they use code-phrases like "states-rights" when what they really mean is maintaining "white power". I mean that when Republicans push "faith-based charities" by emphasizing the soup kitchens that only some churches maintain and which are a miniscule percent of their expenditures, when they really want government money for evangelical activities.

BULL. I think you attribute this to the Republicans because you cannot explain their popularity and this helps you explain it. Rather than the fact that people actually agree with the Republican platform.

A majority of the tax cuts that benefit all MUST go to the top 10% because THEY PAY MOST OF THE TAX! This isn't hard and most people know this and accept this. People don't think it is fair to pay 40% of your income to the federal government, no matter how rich you are.

Affirmative Action IS reverse-racism! How you can argue against this is incredible! It favors minorities by creating different standards for them to allow more minorities in. If that isn't reverse-racism, I don't know what is. AA should be abolished as being contrary to the 14th Amendment, and once again, most Americans agree with that.

States' Rights means MUCH more than racism, but I wouldn't expect you to grasp that. And yes, MANY Americans support giving more power to the state governments at the expense of the fedeal government.

As for faith-based charities, you really haven't seen the effect they have on communities, do you? They are the biggest charitable group for many communities and a lot of people benefit from their work. Btw, soup kitchens aren't the only things that fall under faith-based charities. And btw, it is actually a fairly unpopular idea that Bush backed because he really believed in it.


So... I see a bunch of policies where the Republicans ACTUALLY tell the people what they think and the people agree with them. Sorry if this doesn't fit your mold, but a substantial number of people agree with the actual *REAL* Republican agenda.


Of course this is all like saying if the Democrats actually told people that they back more welfare and more AA so that they can create a class that is dependant on government that will vote for Democrats (because they are the pro-government party).

[uh Clem]

Yeah, and non-athletes are denied equal protection under the 14th because of the extra points given to jocks.

To repeat: legacy preferences are racially discriminatory. Somehow the Bush administration doesn't hasn't even spoken out against them, much less filed a brief. A reasonable conclusion: the Bush administration supports Affirmative Action for caucasoids, or at least rich ones.

It's always strange when a younger generation of bigots imagine that they're presenting new arguments.

[Az]

[uh Clem]

Excerpt from CNN's Crossfire (Thursday):

PAUL BEGALA: Why is it OK for Yale to let George W. Bush in because his daddy went there, but it's not OK for Michigan to help poor kids who are black or Hispanic?

ALEX CASTELLANOS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: There are a lot of factors that universities consider. And if someone has a special relationship and heritage and the university means something to him, a lot of universities use that for black and white students.

"There are a lot of factors that universities consider." Exactly.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by uh Clem


Maybe yes, maybe no. Ever tried it? Nobody's ever bothered me in a black neighborhood.

But will you receive the same amount of POLICE attention as you would as, say, a black person in Bel-Air? Who's likelier to get arrested? It's not a question racists like to ask.

Actually...yes. Because police know that white people in those areas are usually...looking for something.

Similarly, those who aren't...providing something...will often avoid white people because of the chance that they are undercover cops posing as white people...looking for something.

[Guynemer]

Drake--
Come on--despite the madness of considering the Big 12 superior to the Big 10, you are a pretty intelligent guy. You know very well that saying "minority enrollment has not dropped below 11%" is the furthest thing from proof that a quota exists. Next year, it could be 8%; what will the CIR say then? "Minority enrollment has never been below 8%--it must be a quota!"

You're gonna have to do better than that. Enrollment has bounced between 11% and 20% under the current policy; unlikely that one would see such a large range under a quota system.


Dinodoc--
Despite the madness of being conservative, you're also an intelligent guy. You know that the UM admissions policy, at least for LSA, is in complete compliance with the Bakke decision. Bush has not called for Bakke to be overturned; so what the hell is the issue here?

Separate from that, I want to ask you a serious question, as you are easily the conservative I respect the most on these boards. If UM's system of AA is overturned, what then do YOU propose be done for minority students, given the powerful effects of racism that still plague this country?

[DinoDoc]

Despite the madness of being conservative, you're also an intelligent guy.

I'm sorry but the line was to hard to pass up given your addmission of the philosophical problems with AA.

If UM's system of AA is overturned, what then do YOU propose be done for minority students, given the powerful effects of racism that still plague this country?

Orange has the best alternative to scrapping the system altogether which I will grant is politically impossible at this point. Why should the son of Bob Johnson get more of a help than the son of a white plumber simply because of the basis of race?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Despite the madness of being conservative, you're also an intelligent guy.

I'm sorry but the line was to hard to pass up given your addmission of the philosophical problems with AA.

As I said, sometimes philosophical purity is not as important as confronting reality.

If UM's system of AA is overturned, what then do YOU propose be done for minority students, given the powerful effects of racism that still plague this country?

Orange has the best alternative to scrapping the system altogether which I will grant is politically impossible at this point. Why should the son of Bob Johnson get more of a help than the son of a white plumber simply because of the basis of race?

Should I assume that your implication is that the son of a white plummer is poor? As I understand it, plummers make a pretty good living nowadays.

Regardless, if that was your implication, then that is not an issue under the UM system in LSA. What CNN's chart (taken from CIR) neglected to mention is that you can get 20 points for being an underrepresented minority, or 20 points for being of low socioeconomic status, but you can't get both. So poor white kids are getting every single bit of help that minority kids do. What say you to that?

Also, you didn't address the Bakke issue.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
As I said, sometimes philosophical purity is not as important as confronting reality.

Which is why I mentioned the amendment process to the Constitution. I don't like ignoring parts of it when convenient.

Also, you didn't address the Bakke issue.

If you insist. The legal weight held by the portion of the Bakke case that UM seems to be holding a death grip on seems to be in doubt. Powell's portion of the splintered opinion which held that racial preferences was a constitutionally permissible way to iumprove education is shakey given that it was not endorsed by any other justice.

Here is some information that a few people may find interesting.

Furthermore: That more-diverse campuses better educate their students "is yet to be convincingly demonstrated," he acknowledges. "The research still needs to be done that would demonstrate the link." - Alexander W. Astin, director of the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles