|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Please provide evidence which shows that the quality of medical doctors in the US or Canada has declined due to Affirmative Action. It is my suspicion that the quality has probably increased, because now the pool of people considered for medical school is greater than it used to be.
quote: The means were NEVER objective. That's the point. They ALWAYS gave subjective, preferential consideration to high- to middle-class white males simply because they were white males. I don't know what kind of rose colored glasses you are looking back through history with, but you really need to take them off.
quote: Of course they were race based in the past. And gender based. It was not that long ago that women weren't allowed to study certain disciplines because letting a woman into the program in might bump out a man who "really needed the training". Women were told this to their faces. It was only 60 years ago that black men were let into professional sports.
quote: So, why is it that you aren't wondering if a white male doctor was in the bottom of his class? Why do you only wonder if the black woman is qualified?
quote: You clearly implied that blacks deserve to be discriminated against as opposed to other ethnic minorities.
quote: Then you are saying that generally, black people are less able. That's racist.
quote: But the work histories and qualifications on the applications were highly comparable, yet the black-sounding names didn't even get interviews. Wouldn't an employer want to interview ALL qualified candidates? How can an employer possibly make any kind of judgement at all about someone's personality or skills without even meeting them? Does that mean that these employers somehow know that every single person named Shakira or Jamal, regardless of having the same references and qualifications and experience listed on their applications, are inherently less able without even meeting them?
quote: No, they weren't. Blacks were owned by whites. Chinese were laborers and were certainly discriminated against, but they were never considered chattel.
quote: Whites, as a class, were never imported from white nations to be owned by blacks in black nations. Whites were initially welcomed by the American Indians, too, and were treated well by them.
quote: It would be nice if this wish of yours was true, but it's not, no matter how many times you say it. Have you ever been the the American South?
quote: Education? Education is the answer? Well, isn't that a large part of what AA seeks to address?
quote: How about we institute a aggressive national family planning, contraception, and reproductive health education program, combined with a lot of social support for families of all kinds, so people can make educated choices about what's best for them and their own lives? You do realize that poor single mothers are equally likely to be white than black, don't you? You also know that most mothers receiving welfare benefits are adults, not teenagers, don't you?
quote: ...and gender.
quote: So, how do we prevent people in high places who think that there are too many women on campus already, or that it's getting a bit dark in the med school, from discriminating?
quote: I thought you were all about "individuality"? What you are doing is forcing everyone into a bland, homogeneous, politically-correct mold in the application process. And you fail to address the college interviews and recruiting of students for graduate school.
quote: Title 9 is most certainly an affirmative action program that ensures equal access and funding for college athletics based solely upon gender. It also requires equal access in academics based upon gender as well.
quote: We aren't talking about people getting better facilities, really. We're talking about people getting better access. White males have always had better access, to almost everything. This levels the playing field.
quote: Oh, for heaven's sake. Sure, and I can be an Olympic shot put champion if I just try hard enough. Getting elected into an influential political office takes a LOT of people wanting you to be there. If enough people don't want you there, you won't get there. Just ask John McCain.
quote: The majority of large political donors are, though.
quote: they mostly have to adjust their spin for the voters but adjust their policies to benefit their political donors, who are largely wealthy, powerful, white, male businessmen. You do understand that Corporations pull most of the strings in America, don't you? And anyway, your complaining about how poor white males being discriminated agaist still doesn't impress me. White males own the corporate world and almost all of the political world. When white males are the minority in the three branches of government AND in the boardrooms and CEO suites of the Fortune 500, then you'll get my attention regarding your claim of discrimination. And you AGAIN did not address my point about the origins of the economic clout that you say that women and minorities enjoy. Were it not for Affirmative Action, women and minorities wouldn't be in the position to be earning at a level that makes companies like GM consider them important enough to cater to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6473 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
No, recelations does not say what you suggest. There may eb war, but it is not a war that Christians are expected to begin. And, in any event, it is at some unstated, unknown future time, dependent upon the actions of G-d himself. It does not expect Christains today, tomorrow and forever to kill, subjugate and conquer all others.
Almost all those who settled the US were fundamentalist by today's standards (consider the Pilgrims, as one example) - moreso, in fact, than the majority of those you call fundamentalist today. As to whether there were people of other faiths in the colonies, that is the odd comment. Perhaps there were a few. Obviously, though, Christians were the overwhelming majority and it is they and their will that dominated. Israel's Muslims are freely voted to parliament. It has an Arab Muslim on its Supreme Court. Arabs are prominent in the media. The only way in which it favours Jews is with respect to national security. Thus, Jews must serve in the army, but Arabs do not. And yet, there actually are some Arabs in the services, usually minority Arab Muslim groups who are more loyal to Israel than to the Islamic world that wants to crush israel. You are miserably misinformed about Israel in general, and about the history of the Middle East. But I don't have time to deal with that now. (But recognize that Islam invaded Israel in the 7th century, 2,000 years after Judiasm had been created, and pushed the Jews out (but not all: there has been a continuous Jewish presnece there for over 3,000 years). Moreover, most of the Palestinains are, in fact, Jordanians, Syrians, and some are Egyptians (as was Arafat) and Lebanese. Most moved to the region in the 1800's after the Jews began arriving and created industry, irrigation and services. In other words, they came to take advantage of what the Jews were creating. Before then, it was largely desolate desert - as noted by Mark Twain, BTW. There has never been an Arab state there. After WW 1, there was a gigantic land mass, which was divided into about 22 Arab states, and the Jews were to get a tiny sliver of that. The british and Arabs reneged on that, a deal that had been sanctioned by the League of Nations. After WW 11, the United Nations acted on that deal - making Israel, perhaps, the only nation legally established - but the Jews got much less land than they had been originally promised. The sliver became micrscopic. They invited the Arabs there to establish a modern democracy with them. Instead, they joined in with the 5 Arab armies that invaded the moment the state was declared - at least those who who hadn't taken the advice and orders of those Arab nations to leave fast so teh invasion would be neater. Those who stayed behind were a 5th column in a time of war for the very survivfal of this new state. Thus, some of them were evicted. But many stayed. That's why Israel's Arab population today is over one million, and they are the only Atabs wo enjoy freedom and democracy. It is interesting to note that they have not joined in with their Arab brthren in trying to destroy Israel. They have not been suicide bombers. And when in 2000 it was suggested that Israel trade a bit of Israeli land where mainly Arabs live for the suburbs of Jerusalem in the west bank where mainly Arabs live, the Arabs said : NO Friggin Way. The last thing they wanted was to live under Arab rule, when they had it so good under Israeli rule. There is so much more, but this will suffice for now. You are correct that in times past the Islamic world was better to Jews than the Christian world. You are sorely misinformed about how the islamic world feels about Jews today. In the recent landmark Pew poll, that showed in the past two years Muslims have begun to turn away from Islamism and towards democracy, it noted that 100%, yes, 100% of Muslims in the ME and in other Islamic countries have strongly negative opinions about Jews. If you read the Islamic media, (try MEMRI), the daily calls for a holocaust against Jews is blood curdling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6473 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
This is getting too long, and we're starting to go in circles. So I'll be brief, and let you have the last word.
Has Affirmative action lowered the quality of doctors? One can't provide you with objective evidence. But logic says yes. If before affirmative action the average undergrad mark of a Med student was 90%, but now, because of affirmative action, it is 85%, and if other criteria standards haev been similarly lowered, then it stands to reason that the average doctor today is less capable than those before. That doesn't mean teh quality of care has gone down, given advancing knowledge, improved technology and pharmaceuticals. But we have, nonetheless, compromised on the average ability of doctors. Marks have always been the prime determinant of who gets in. I suspect, BTW, that Black employers also discriminate against Black applicants. Rgardless, I am not arguing that there is no discrimination. Of course there is. I am arguing against affirmative action as a means to deal with that, as it creates more injustice than it solves, and it undermines essential and fundamental principles of democracy. Yes, i said education is part of the answer - but AA is not that. AA is ignioring educational accomplishment. I say teh accomlishment must be real. If education is aprt of the answer, then it must be real education, with real results, so that Blacks who get into various universities fully earned their way in. As for everything else, you've misunderstood my points in my previous posts. the answers are there. You're welcome to the last word. This is getting too redundant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
You confuse challenges of confronting and subduing Arab-Islamic fanaticism with damn a-rabs are sitting on OUR oil!"
Why should the American Enterprise Institute be dealing with "confronting and subduing Arab-Islamic fanaticism"? Shouldn't that be done by a military/intellegence/law enforcement "think tank"? Not an economic/capitalist "think tank". To me when they say in their mission:"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of freedom--limited government, private enterprise, vital cultural and political institutions, a strong foreign policy and national defense" This means that they are looking at ways the military can open up markets in foreign lands. This is basic colonialism.
I know it’s easy to equate Arabs with oil and the corporate quest for oil as the only real foreign policy goal of the US. But Arab-Islamic fanaticism and it’s eventual realization in terrorism does not translate into the tired shallow assessment that the US is only interested in Arab oil.
Then why are we (the West) even there militarily?I'm not talking about post 9/11. I'm talking about the past 100 years. The west has had some form of military presence in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Why would we give a damn about some brown people in the desert?We don't, we care about what they are sitting on. This has led to clashes and growing animosity between the "2" sides.It has just escalated in the past decade. It's ultimately all about oil no matter how you look at it.
You equate the CAFTA with US corporate expansionism and exploitation.
Because that's what the effect of CAFTA will be.
CAFTA is basically the same as NAFTA,
Exactly, and under NAFTA thousands of American jobs went to Mexico.Whole plants shut down to moved to Mexico. Everybody's happy except the workers that got laid off and the towns that lost their largest employer and tax base. After 10 years, NAFTA has proven beneficial to all countries involved
When you say country, what do you mean?It's been beneficial to certain US corporations and the Mexicans in the new factories. These jobs had to be taken from Americans. The US sugar industry is actively lobbying against CAFTA because they stand to loose substantial government subsidies.
Central American farmers are also very opposed because the price of their produce will plummet and they will be SOL. Since these countries economies depend largely on agriculture what do you think the effects might be?
NAFTA was a Clinton era initiative that has proven successful.
For certain US corporations and the Mexican provinces where they located their new factories, sure.
To characterize CAFTA as nothing more than US corporate greed and exploitation is a short sighted view that does not acknowledge the benefits accrued from NAFTA.
Can you list a few of these benefits?A few examples will do. Free trade agreements are not about US corporate expansionism.
What else could CAFTA possily be about?
Corporations in all countries involved benefit from the agreement that’s why CAFTA is being considered because NAFTA was a success.
Corporations and their stockholders will surely benefit.US corporations can take advantage of lax central american regulations in some areas, or sue the governments for billions whenever the regulations (mainly environmental) appear to conflict with CAFTA. It’s really your misguided rhetoric that's wrong. It’s ridiculous to suggest that US corporations own other countries and that US foreign policy in areas of military occupation exists for the sole purpose of corporate exploitation.
The couple of examples I can think of off the top of my head are Firestone practially owning Liberia and pretty much harvesting rubber in the early 20th century (through the 1930s) using slave labor and Chiquita pretty much owning Honduras and harvesting bananas with labor that were practically slaves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Oh yes, and when this is all done, when everyone has agreed to live in harmony and democracy, when exactly will Jesus come to kill all nonXians and establish his kingdom on earth?
I'm sorry, but that's totally awesome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Why can't you delete posts?
This message has been edited by gnojek, 07-19-2005 12:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I think you make one error in your analysis and that revolves around "American Corporations".
The term "American Corporations" connotes some underlying connection and loyalty between the concept of America as a nation and corporate behavior. I believe this misses the change from corporation as a local entity tied to a community, and corporation as a flexible-international entity existing beyond the realm of nationhood. Nation States are a barrier and obstacle to the modern corporation. The threat to Nationhood, to the very concept of Nation, is simply Corporate Culture. The "New World Order" is not coming from the UN, but acts such as NAFTA and CAFTA. IMHO this is a serious threat to the continued existence of Nation States, including the US. It is also a serious threat to National Security. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
What are you talking about?
Organizations worth supporting: Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security) Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights) AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If before affirmative action the average undergrad mark of a Med student was 90%, but now, because of affirmative action, it is 85%, and if other criteria standards haev been similarly lowered, then it stands to reason that the average doctor today is less capable than those before. You have to prove that those marks are lower, though. That's what she asked yout o do. And that's how we know you're a racist. You just automatically assume that, because someone is black, their score is 5% less than a white kid's.
Has Affirmative action lowered the quality of doctors? One can't provide you with objective evidence. Yeah. You know what you call someone who believes, in the absence of any evidence, that persons of one race or another are "naturally" inferior? A racist.
If education is aprt of the answer, then it must be real education, with real results, so that Blacks who get into various universities fully earned their way in. They did. Every single one of them. The fact that you summarily dismiss their accomplishment due to the color of their skin is how we know you're a racist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You've racked up more than a few offenses recently, including this one and the namecalling accusations of Canadian Steve. Do you believe the word "racist" has no meaning? That no one, ever, is or has ever been a racist? Canadian Steve used the word before I did, you know. Did you criticize him for calling people racist? No, I guess you didn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
He clearly isn't a racist. He's making reasonable points. Your namecalling is uncalled for. And no I didn't see him call anybody a racist. Maybe I missed it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He clearly isn't a racist. Do you believe that "racist" is a word without meaning, then? In what way does the word not apply to someone who unfairly judges others by their race?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3925 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Is there any form of trade agreement between nations that you support? If so, which ones?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6473 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
You're truly too irrational, too angry, too hostile and, perhaps, too ideologically far left wing, to debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You're truly too irrational, too angry, too hostile and, perhaps, too ideologically far left wing, to debate. Try to keep in mind that I'm a registered Republican in Minnesota and that I voted for Bush before you jump back in to the name-calling, ok? "Ideologically far left wing" doesn't really carry much punch to a former College Republican. At any rate, your continuing assertions that you're not going to talk to me never seems to stop you from posting these frothing name-calling diatribes. Why is that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024