Liberals, can you defend your policy?

Question

Libs, can you defend your policies, such as affirmative action?

Can you please tell me how discriminating against someone now, to make up for discrimination of the past is going to help create equality?

In 100 years, will my grandkids have an affirmative action to make up for the affirmative action of today?

-----------

dukalink, are you saying two wrongs make a right?

cantcu, everyone in this country right now has access to the same educational system.

Are you saying that in order for blacks to have a level playing field, we need to give them a step up to the field? Are you saying they can not achieve on their own? You sound racist.

Affirmative action is a racist policy.

Answer 1

Affirmative action is not here to "pay back" previous discrimination but to prevent current discrimination. Whether it exists or not in large amounts (there will always be at least one person in America who is racist and in a position of power) is somewhat difficult to determine to say the least.

Some would argue that racists whites established themselves in positions of power early in this country's history and do everything they can to make sure racist whites stay in power, so even now they are at the top and affirmative action is there only to ensure a more equal chance for minorities. Others argue the point of affirmative action was to equalize it out and now that it has been in place for many years it has done its job and it is now time to quit before it equalizes "too much."

I'm not sure myself if it is right (I'm Hispanic), especially since I don't like it being attributed to affirmative action when I get a decent job. But I have seen it happen already too many times that I did lose a job because somebody felt I should go back to Mexico (I was born in the United States and I'm around 6th generation in from my Mexican ancestry, 3 generations in from my European ancestry, and native from my Native American ancestry). I think it is helpful and needed but I do understand why whites (especially the males) would feel it unfair. Sometimes they lose the job even when more qualified because of it.

Answer 2

We in today's' world feel that 100 yrs ago was a long time ago. If you were on the other end of this discrimination, you might feel differently. It's was to try and even the field. Educating people is the way out of poverty. And you know what? It worked!!! We now have many more educated minorities and they contribute and pay taxes and own nice homes. Why we did so good with affirmative action that we have even created African-American Republicans. The Conservatives should thank us!!!!!!

Answer 3

You don't know what you are talking about. Affirmative action does not make up for discrimination of the past. It wasn't intended to do that. Affirmative action is supposed to level the playing field for people who have been historically disadvantaged due to cultural, not political, differences.

The U.S. Supreme ruled that discrimination against qualified applicants to medical school at the expense of minorities was reverse discrimination.

That said, achievement is not an exclusive property of any one cultural group or race. So why would this be a problem?

I don't think anyone ever believed that discrimination of the past is going to create equality. I don't get where that comes from. Who told you that discrimination of the past was going to create anything? Discrimination of the past was a patent racism against blacks, Jews, Asians, Catholics and anyone a sick person like a Klu Klux Klan member or a White Supremacist thought was inferior. Discrimination of the past was what Hitler did in Germany. Where do you get the notion that people suffering the oppression of that kind of thinking aren't entitled to educate themselves to move past that kind of stinkin' thinkin'?

I would hope, in the next 100 years that we can do better than affirmative action. I would hope it doesn't make any difference to anyone what color or race or religion someone is.

The Indian Parliament is working on affirmative action to break down the caste system there. Affirmative action must represent something right about civilization that the Indian Parliament is considering Affirmative Action to break up the caste system there. There is something inherently right about that. The Brahman's don't like it, just like the wealthy in this country didn't like Affirmative Action in the 1970's.

I am not better than anyone and nobody is better than me. Does that make me equal or inferior?

Answer 4

You fundamentally misunderstand affirmative action. Reverse discrimination is illegal and I've never heard anyone seriously support it. Affirmative action is a general policy that, all other things equal, minorities should be picked for positions, as increasing diversity in the workplace is beneficial to the company and to the community.

Do you seriously think you are being discriminated against? Are you having a difficult time making a living because of all the rich black people? Don't be so ridiculous.

Answer 5

Notice - another liberal "policy" mandated by the courts.

I'm waiting for the NAACP to demand more whites in Pro basketball since they're so concerned about parity.

It would also be kind of nice to walk into the city hall ands see a white worker behind the desk every now and then. I guess the NAACP will get to that after they file a class action law suit against the United ***** College Fund for the obvious inequity they foster.

Answer 6

Don't worry about equality and reverse discrimination because in a hundred years our budget deficit will be outrageously high, social security & medicare will be bust, the water & air will be polluted & the US will get hit with a 100 hurricanes a year (from global warming) and all of the large companies & banks will have raided our IRAs. So life will suck for all of our grandchildren - unless the bird flu wipes them out first.

Answer 7

Jesus. It has spawn.

I believe that affirmative action was and executive order created during a time of racism. And, judging by the racist comments I see on this forum alone, apparently racism is still widely tolerated. What's the alternative-allowing employers to not hire someone because they believe them to be lazy or a thief? Then you will be one of the many complaining about how they aren't "pulling their own weight" and are on welfare.

Answer 8

No defense is necessary, ever heard of the right thing to do. Not that neo-cons care what is right or wrong.

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition that holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[2]. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, "modern" liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right. In the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism, which is associated with the political ideology of liberalism itself.

Answer 9

definite. they could. maximum of what Obama is as a lot as now might want to be what's called pragmatism. Pragmatism is the appliance of coverage to remedy complications. As such, they're logically defensible. right here's a good judgment difficulty for you. tell me what seems logical. you've 10 those who're eligible to receive funds from some authorities software. enable's say that is a software to help little ones study. Now you comprehend that what you're doing is going to help, yet you comprehend that 2 individuals are probable going to take the money and not in any respect do something. they are going to thieve it. what's the pragmatic element to do? nicely, a conservative individual will wail about both human beings. they are going to do no longer something because the considered human beings stealing is too a lot to undergo. A liberal individual will say... look. we gained't save human beings from stealing. we can attempt. even if the numerous element is that we ought to help those different 8 human beings and that is worth it. those who can study are going to be effective and be more advantageous effective electorate. besides, no longer all liberal guidelines are really uncomplicated to shield, yet I see this good judgment, and that i do not see the conservative good judgment in any respect.

Answer 10

But it's OK for Universities to hold seats for the rich, donators and Alumni!!

What it will do is give blacks a level playing field that will take years to overcome.

And your analogy sucks, given that more kids are admitted because their daddys are rich!!