Democrats Have Impeached Trump in the House.

[cerebus]

Have you read any Thomas Sowell?

I'm familiar with his arguments. And I'm willing to accept a case that AA isn't as effective as it should be in its outcomes. I'm not willing to accept an argument that AA is racist because it's anti-white. That's just stupidity in my opinion.

 

[konfab]

Yes that's what AA attempts to do.

No it doesn't.
Have a look at Harvard's SAT score system which is a full embodiment of affirmative action:

He said Harvard sends recruitment letters to African-American, Native American and Hispanic high schoolers with mid-range SAT scores, around 1100 on math and verbal combined out of a possible 1600, CNN reported.

Asian-Americans only receive a recruitment letter if they score at least 250 points higher — 1350 for women, and 1380 for men.

Fitzsimmons explained a similar process for white wannabe students in states that don’t see a lot of Harvard attendees, like Montana or Nevada. Students in those states would receive a recruitment letter if they had at least a 1310 on their SATs.

https://nypost.com/2018/10/17/harvards-gatekeeper-reveals-sat-cutoff-scores-based-on-race/

Different standards for different people. Full blown racial nationalism.

I make no such assumptions. But as far as I know, whites were never enslaved or endured Jim Crow laws in the South, or forced to live in ghettoes because of zoning laws. We are talking about making amends for the sins of the past. And I'm sorry if you don't feel personally responsible for other people, it is not the point.

Making amends doesn't mean you do the same thing now. Again. Not all black people were slaves.

Again, that's exactly what AA tries to do. It attempts to give black (or previously disadvantaged) people a leg up in the job market, which as you say, helps them work their own way out poverty instead of relying on government handouts. Isn't that better than welfare?

That isn't what it does though.
What it does is give rich black kids who have the same opportunities as rich white kids a leg up over poor kids of any race.

I never said that welfare was the be-all and end all. Isn't it better to provide opportunities to those who need them, rather than to those who have correct colour skin?

 

[Spizz]

Already have some junior. Please explain exactly where you explained how this impeachment trampled on democracy. All I see is obfuscation, deflection and pure bs.



Don't be lazy, show your work.

You're really milking this straw man to death now, hey?

My point is simple and it looks like Konfab understood perfectly. Now I'm not here to be your laptop and/or explain why 2+2 doesn't equal 5 to you. So maybe you can explain and point out my "obfuscation", "deflection" and "pure bs". One example of each please.

Go, quickly now. Oh, and read Konfabs answer above so you have an idea what the adults are discussing.

 

[konfab]

I'm not willing to accept an argument that AA is racist because it's anti-white

Goddam I wish that MYbb still had signatures....


You are now in the territory where if you are white person, and don't fully endorse AA, you are a Nazi bigot. You are parroting the line that progressives and the media have been parroting for decades. It shouldn't come to a shock to when white people behave like humans and want the thing that is actively discriminating against them gone.

You and all the progressives should seriously consider becoming Christians, as it seems you really have taken the concept of original sin to heart.

 

[cerebus]

Goddam I wish that MYbb still had signatures....

Perhaps you misunderstood me.

I'm not willing to accept an argument that "AA is racist because it's anti-white"

 

[Pitbull]

Goddam I wish that MYbb still had signatures....

Fits the definition of racism to the T

 

[Moosedrool]

Ok I'm not going to regurgitate my whole debate with konfab but I've addressed your points already

No you haven't.

AA doesn't cater for individual situation at all and discriminates based on the colour of people's skin. No matter how you look at it it is institutionalised racism. Pointing a finger at a race saying but they did it first and this is only to rectify statistics doesn't make it immune to being discriminatory.

 

[Pitbull]

Perhaps you misunderstood me.

I'm not willing to accept an argument that "AA is racist because it's anti-white"

So "corrective" racism then?

 

[Gnarls]

You're really milking this straw man to death now, hey?

My point is simple and it looks like Konfab understood perfectly. Now I'm not here to be your laptop and/or explain why 2+2 doesn't equal 5 to you. So maybe you can explain and point out my "obfuscation", "deflection" and "pure bs". One example of each please.

Go, quickly now. Oh, and read Konfabs answer above so you have an idea what the adults are discussing.

No, you're the one coming into this thread calling people all kinds of names without backing anything up. Just answer the question. Since you mentioned konfab's post.

That isn't democracy being trampled on though. It is Democracy (with a capital D) in action.
What is being trampled on is the rule of law and an South Africa's case individual rights (which my friend Cerberus has just stated can be trampled upon for any reason the state wants)

What you don't want to admit, is that Democracy isn't proving to be a very effective safeguard against the powers of the state.
Which leaves you two options:
Find another way of choosing rulers (maybe a Monarchy with clones of the Queen as eternal rulers)
Recognise that the government will be corrupt regardless of what you do and limit the powers of the state. (Which involves delegating responsibility to the private sector).

So, WTF have you answered? You made the assertion, you prove it.

 

[Pitbull]

No you haven't.

AA doesn't cater for individual situation at all and discriminates based on the colour of people's skin. No matter how you look at it it is institutionalised racism. Pointing a finger at a race saying but they did it first and this is only to rectify statistics doesn't make it immune to being discriminatory.

Also not redressing any issues. It seems like it's the "currently privileged" benefiting. Redress starts with education and skills development, which have been taking place for 25+ years. There is no need for AA and to hide it under "redress" is retarded. It's outright discrimination based on race.

Do poor white people from back then, or even white people of the ANC get afforded the same benefits of AA?

Also, AA in SA, is the only place in the world where it's to protect the majority of the population and not the minority. America also has AA, but for the minorities, not the majority.

 

[Spizz]

That isn't democracy being trampled on though. It is Democracy (with a capital D) in action.
What is being trampled on is the rule of law and an South Africa's case individual rights (which my friend Cerberus has just stated can be trampled upon for any reason the state wants)

What you don't want to admit, is that Democracy isn't proving to be a very effective safeguard against the powers of the state.
Which leaves you two options:
Find another way of choosing rulers (maybe a Monarchy with clones of the Queen as eternal rulers)
Recognise that the government will be corrupt regardless of what you do and limit the powers of the state. (Which involves delegating responsibility to the private sector).

I'm quite happy with democracy with the capital D. It is really the only way but unfortunately it is also open to abuse as we have seen with Zuma and imo, we have seen now with Trump. He never answered any charges and the people were let down by the people who are elected to represent them.

Is he guilty? Who knows, but it's a shame we'll never know because the Republication outnumber the Democrats. That is it, that's the kicker because the system let all the people down. Not just the people who "won", but there will be a time when they are on the losing side as well. And that is hardly democracy in the spirit or true sense of the word.

 

[cerebus]

No you haven't.

AA doesn't cater for individual situation at all and discriminates based on the colour of people's skin.

Yes AA is based on the color of people's skin, which is convenient because slavery and Jim Crow laws were also based on the color of people's skin. It's not about rectifying statistics, it's about reparations for historical wrongs, and those were specifically racial in nature.

 

[AfricanTech]

Wait, wait, wait....

There are people defending Adolf Hitler in here?

.
.
.
.
.
.


/exits quietly

 

[Gnarls]

^we literally have Hitler's in this thread.

I'm quite happy with democracy with the capital D. It is really the only way but unfortunately it is also open to abuse as we have seen with Zuma and imo, we have seen now with Trump. He never answered any charges and the people were let down by the people who are elected to represent them.

Is he guilty? Who knows, but it's a shame we'll never know because the Republication outnumber the Democrats. That is it, that's the kicker because the system let all the people down. Not just the people who "won", but there will be a time when they are on the losing side as well. And that is hardly democracy in the spirit or true sense of the word.

That's a far cry from being trampled upon. Also, the matter of whether there was a crime is still up for debate.

 

[Eniigma]

The last I saw Binden was dead last or there abouts in the Iowa results... if there was nothing dodgy with Hunter and Ukraine and this whole empeachement sham (from both sides) proved Trump abused his power, how come he went from being the Dems best hope (by some reports) to dead last?

Serious question. Trying to understand it all.

 

[C4Cat]

It's not. You guys want it to be... it's not

Ok... So then, tell me about which wars were fought that were not based on nationalism.

 

[Moosedrool]

Yes AA is based on the color of people's skin, which is convenient because slavery and Jim Crow laws were also based on the color of people's skin. It's not about rectifying statistics, it's about reparations for historical wrongs, and those were specifically racial in nature.

Yes they we're but how does that make AA non discriminatory?

 

[cerebus]

Yes they we're but how does that make AA non discriminatory?

I didn't say it's non-discriminatory, I said it's not racist.

 

[scudsucker]

Don't be lazy, show your work.

L.O.L.

 

[Moosedrool]

I didn't say it's non-discriminatory, I said it's not racist.

Well it's both. Discrimination based on the colour of peoples skin.

There's no way that it's not racism institutionalised by the state. There is no argument even actually.