Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 256 of 301 (224597)
07-19-2005 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by CanadianSteve
07-18-2005 9:34 PM


quote:
Technical MINIMUM standards remain. The actual average ability of doctors has probably decreased.
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:
True, test scores are not the whole story. But they are the best indicator. And, in any event, neither have test scores ever been the sole criteria for acceptance. But whatever complete set of criteria has been used as the most comprehensive, overall OBJECTIVE means, has now been compromised.
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:
If you believe those criteria were race biased, you're a lost far leftist cause.
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:
But if ever you have a child whose life depends on a truly skilled doctor seeing her, you may have second thoughts about this.
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:
I've never said that Blacks are inherently less skilled.
You clearly implied that blacks deserve to be discriminated against as opposed to other ethnic minorities.
quote:
But for whatever reasons, if, IF, employers, either overall or in specific zones, have objective experience that their Black employees are, generally speaking, less able for whatever reasons than non Black employees, then to act on that is not racism per se.
Then you are saying that generally, black people are less able.
That's racist.
quote:
All employers use the best predictors they can to come up with the best workforce. If Blacks prove to be the best workers, overall, then the chances are more than good that the same employers who now discriminate against Blacks, would then discriminate for them. Overall - with exceptions for true racists - experience, not race, determines employer preferences.
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:
I disagree about slavery. During most of that same era, all non whites were seen that way in white societies,
No, they weren't. Blacks were owned by whites. Chinese were laborers and were certainly discriminated against, but they were never considered chattel.
quote:
just as whites were seen in very pejorative terms in non white societies.
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:
But times have radcially changed. That Blacks were seen and treated so badly not all that long ago simply has no connection to affirmative action today -
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:
other than, perhaps, because slavery broke down such a high percentage of Black families, the residual effect is a large, underperforming, Black underclass. If that is so - and it's only a theory - then affirmative action is not the answer. Concentrated resources, social supports, education, etc, is.
Education? Education is the answer?
Well, isn't that a large part of what AA seeks to address?
quote:
So is getting almost babies born of painfully immature, often substance abusing, single Black omen adopted out to mature, capable families, preferably Black for obvious reasons.
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:
If you insist that there is no way to adjudicate university apps while giving consideration to various community activities and linking that to race,
...and gender.
quote:
then i say use the exact same standard for every applicant. Community activities earn so many points. But race and ethnicity do not.
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:
Nor are they actually noted anywhere. Yes, someone going over an app will note that someone may have worked in an ethnic setting, but that doesn't have to be written down anywhere, as it is the service and activity that earns points, not its location. Thus you don't have to forget, becasue it's not written down anywhere to forget - only the points are documented.
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:
Affirmative action has nothing to do with equal sports facilities.
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:
That is an altogether different matter, one of OBJECTIVITY. It is objectively fair that women get equal facilities. It is hopelessly subjective and absurd to say, if we're to follow the logic of affirmative action, that because women have had lesser facilities in times past, they should now get even better ones than men for who knows how many years. And Black women should get even better facilities than white women.
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:
As for white men ruling the nation...First, anyone can run for office.
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 voters are not white men.
The majority of large political donors are, though.
quote:
second, white men in power have to win the votes of non white men, so adjust their policies accordingly.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-18-2005 9:34 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-19-2005 11:52 AM nator has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 257 of 301 (224609)
07-19-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Silent H
07-19-2005 10:36 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Silent H, posted 07-19-2005 10:36 AM Silent H has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 258 of 301 (224611)
07-19-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by nator
07-19-2005 10:47 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by nator, posted 07-19-2005 10:47 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 7:00 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 299 by nator, posted 07-20-2005 7:34 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 301 (224615)
07-19-2005 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Monk
07-07-2005 11:56 PM


Re: Free Trade
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Monk, posted 07-07-2005 11:56 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by jar, posted 07-19-2005 1:03 PM gnojek has not replied
 Message 268 by Monk, posted 07-19-2005 7:33 PM gnojek has not replied

gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 301 (224617)
07-19-2005 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Silent H
07-15-2005 3:56 PM


Re: More on neocon success
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Silent H, posted 07-15-2005 3:56 PM Silent H has not replied

gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 301 (224618)
07-19-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Jazzns
07-15-2005 4:29 PM


Re: More on neocon success
Why can't you delete posts?
This message has been edited by gnojek, 07-19-2005 12:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Jazzns, posted 07-15-2005 4:29 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Jazzns, posted 07-19-2005 2:52 PM gnojek has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 262 of 301 (224620)
07-19-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by gnojek
07-19-2005 12:32 PM


Re: Free Trade
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by gnojek, posted 07-19-2005 12:32 PM gnojek has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 263 of 301 (224650)
07-19-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by gnojek
07-19-2005 12:51 PM


Re: More on neocon success
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by gnojek, posted 07-19-2005 12:51 PM gnojek has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 264 of 301 (224692)
07-19-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by CanadianSteve
07-19-2005 11:52 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-19-2005 11:52 AM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-19-2005 7:44 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 265 of 301 (224694)
07-19-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
07-19-2005 8:01 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 8:01 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 7:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 266 of 301 (224702)
07-19-2005 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by crashfrog
07-19-2005 7:01 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 7:01 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 7:25 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 271 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-19-2005 7:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 272 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-19-2005 7:58 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 267 of 301 (224706)
07-19-2005 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Faith
07-19-2005 7:16 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Faith, posted 07-19-2005 7:16 PM Faith has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 268 of 301 (224709)
07-19-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by gnojek
07-19-2005 12:32 PM


Re: Free Trade
Is there any form of trade agreement between nations that you support? If so, which ones?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by gnojek, posted 07-19-2005 12:32 PM gnojek has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6473 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 269 of 301 (224716)
07-19-2005 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by crashfrog
07-19-2005 7:00 PM


You're truly too irrational, too angry, too hostile and, perhaps, too ideologically far left wing, to debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 7:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by crashfrog, posted 07-19-2005 7:49 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 270 of 301 (224718)
07-19-2005 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by CanadianSteve
07-19-2005 7:44 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-19-2005 7:44 PM CanadianSteve has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024