• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Any way to stop the snow flakes in CA

jimbo said:
Other posters did.
Click to expand...
I was responding to a direct interpretation and defence of the OP. In that context, other posts are irrelevant.

Regardless, nobody in the thread has demonstrated pandering to any groups. A couple of people have made claims that is happens but even you yourself have an open challenge to actually back those claims up.
 
americanwoman said:
Okay but we are discussing afrimitive action per OP, not affirmative action. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I directly addressed your question, which was:

What specific laws have hurt White Christian Males? Are you sad no one pandors you?

Set asides, college eligibility requirements, employment opportunities, promotion opportunities, even gerrymandering to correct gerrymandering, all are designed to favor one group over another.
 
HonestJoe said:
I was responding to a direct interpretation and defence of the OP. In that context, other posts are irrelevant.

Regardless, nobody in the thread has demonstrated pandering to any groups. A couple of people have made claims that is happens but even you yourself have an open challenge to actually back those claims up.
Click to expand...

ET-ASIDES are a form of affirmative action used by governments in contracting government business; they include programs that typically designate a percentage of government contracts or funds (either for services or construction of public works) for minority-owned businesses. In 1977 Congress passed a law that directed 10 percent of federal public works funds to minority-controlled businesses, which the Public Works Employment Act defined as ones in which 50 percent of the business was held by African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Amer-icans,Native Americans,

Eskimos, or Aleuts. In 2000, federal agencies purchased more than $13 billion in goods and services from minority-owned businesses as part of the program.

From my post #25.
 
jimbo said:
ET-ASIDES are a form of affirmative action used by governments in contracting government business;
Click to expand...
That's the kind of fact-based rational point this kind of discussion should have been based on in the first place and it was the complete absence of it until your post that people were rightfully challenging. It doesn't seem to be the kind of thing the OP was ranting about and I very much doubt something they know anything about.

Personally, I don't like affirmative action though I recognise the good intentions. I don't see it as pandering to anyone but as an attempt to counteract established discrimination. Anyone disadvantaged by the affirmative action should theoretically only loose advantages that, all being equal, they wouldn't have in the first place. In practice, affirmative action doesn't work all that well and it's something that should be rightly phased out.
 
jimbo said:
These, for some:

SET-ASIDES are a form of affirmative action used by governments in contracting government business; they include programs that typically designate a percentage of government contracts or funds (either for services or construction of public works) for minority-owned businesses. In 1977 Congress passed a law that directed 10 percent of federal public works funds to minority-controlled businesses, which the Public Works Employment Act defined as ones in which 50 percent of the business was held by African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Amer-icans,Native Americans,

Eskimos, or Aleuts. In 2000, federal agencies purchased more than $13 billion in goods and services from minority-owned businesses as part of the program.

(Source, Urban dictionary)

Any Affirmative action program by definition excludes or restricts certain groups to favor other groups.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing in particular to do with California.

What else to you have?
 
jdog21 said:
CA has become the ideolog capital of the western civilization. From minoriarty statues for everyone and afrimitive action. To womens rights and lgbt pronouns and gay rights and islam right. The only people that are getting hurt by all these laws is the White Christian Male.
Laws should be to make everyone equal to effect everyone equally. Not to pandor to a certian intrest group.
Click to expand...

So in other words you think legislature which grants everybody equal rights......hurts white dudes? Seriously? That's right out of 1870 dude.

I really don't think giving gay people the right to actually be legally married was "pandering".

But way to go on hitting every single boogeyman of the far right! African Americans, gay people, Muslims, women....
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Ahh, the oppression olympics! Whoever is the biggest victim wins!
Click to expand...

That's actually pretty ironic seeing as you posted this on a thread whining about how the civil rights movement hurt white people.
 
Tigerace117 said:
That's actually pretty ironic seeing as you posted this on a thread whining about how the civil rights movement hurt white people.
Click to expand...

Did I really? Please quote this nonexistant post.

Also, I don't think you understand what irony means.
 
jdog21 said:
CA has become the ideolog capital of the western civilization. From minoriarty statues for everyone and afrimitive action. To womens rights and lgbt pronouns and gay rights and islam right. The only people that are getting hurt by all these laws is the White Christian Male.
Laws should be to make everyone equal to effect everyone equally. Not to pandor to a certian intrest group.
Click to expand...

I thought that global warming was supposed to get rid of all the snowflakes everywhere....
 
RabidAlpaca said:
If you allegedly think that everyone should be equal under the law, why are you opposed to womens rights, gay rights and religious rights? What minority "statues" are you talking about? Did you see an MLK statue and get really upset?
Can you explain how you personally as a white male are suffering in this totally unjust society? It must be rough, right? Other people having the same rights as you does not hurt you, you poor, poor victim.

To answer your question, no, there is no way for you to rob other people of their rights to hoist white male Christians above everyone else, so you're just going to have to live with it.
Click to expand...

Conservative care the rights of The People, not picking and choosing specific groups of people to apply special rights to. We really don't give a rat's ass what special group you are in, we just want everyone treated the same. No more laws that give certain groups special statuses (like fed. contracts that can only go to minority owned companies), just treat everyone the same way. if you can show that someone isn't treating you the same as everyone else, you deal with that person or company and apply the same laws to them that gets applied to everyone else. Your anti-Christian male chauvinism should be treated the same as anti-black racism, with social rejection. Your attitude is just as backwards and bigoted as the "Colored entrance in back" signs that were once fairly common.
 
TheGoverness said:
So you want everyone to be treated equally, yet you're apparently against minority, women, and LGBT rights. Makes no sense, jdog.
Click to expand...

No, he saying that we shouldn't applying different rules to people just because they are part of some sub-group of society. Treat everyone with the same rules and laws as everyone else.
 
jdog21 said:
CA has become the ideolog capital of the western civilization. From minoriarty statues for everyone and afrimitive action. To womens rights and lgbt pronouns and gay rights and islam right. The only people that are getting hurt by all these laws is the White Christian Male.
Laws should be to make everyone equal to effect everyone equally. Not to pandor to a certian intrest group.
Click to expand...

Spartacus FPV said:
Did I really? Please quote this nonexistant post.

Also, I don't think you understand what irony means.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't read as well as you think you do.
 
faithful_servant said:
No, he saying that we shouldn't applying different rules to people just because they are part of some sub-group of society. Treat everyone with the same rules and laws as everyone else.
Click to expand...

The problem is that historically without laws explicitly stating that you have to treat everybody equally, people refuse to do so.
 
americanwoman said:
What specific laws have hurt White Christian Males? Are you sad no one pandors you?
Click to expand...

How about Fed. contracts that can only go to minority owned businesses?? That 100% pure distilled discrimination and since white Christian males aren't allowed to win those contracts, there was harm done to them. Their legal rights were obstructed. Treat everyone the same and if someone doesn't, then you deal with that person. You don't make the offended party a "special" group and apply a different set of rules to them.
 
jdog21 said:
CA has become the ideolog capital of the western civilization. From minoriarty statues for everyone and afrimitive action. To womens rights and lgbt pronouns and gay rights and islam right. The only people that are getting hurt by all these laws is the White Christian Male.
Laws should be to make everyone equal to effect everyone equally. Not to pandor to a certian intrest group.
Click to expand...

DAMN! Thread runs four pages and not a spelling or grammar Nazi has chimed in!
 
Tigerace117 said:
The problem is that historically without laws explicitly stating that you have to treat everybody equally, people refuse to do so.
Click to expand...

You mean people choose to associate as they please?

What I find hilarious about these discussions is that always gets down to a discussion about equal treatment by private citizens. It's always like this guy doesn't want to hire this group of people or trade with this group of people and that's wrong. Ok, so it's morally wrong according to you, so what? I mean, it's great you have an opinion and all, but the Constitution clearly gives them a right to association that allows them to make such decisions.

The whole mindset created as a result of the civil rights movement is extremely wrongheaded and shows a pretty clear failure at understanding human rights. Human rights should never be considered positive where people are obligated to do something for you, but instead negative where neither one of you are obligated to serve the other. It figures that a socialist like MLK would **** that up.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The problem is that historically without laws explicitly stating that you have to treat everybody equally, people refuse to do so.
Click to expand...

We have laws that state EXACTLY that. The problem is that when they get violated, liberals want to focus on protecting potential victims by granting them special status, instead of protecting them by making causing them harm so painful to the perps, that they won't do it.
 
I dunno about California. I do know that I prefer that everybody everywhere pander to Humbolt. The rest of y'all are on your own. Get your own panderers. Take some responsibility for once in your pitiful lives.
 
Henrin said:
You mean people choose to associate as they please?

What I find hilarious about these discussions is that always gets down to a discussion about equal treatment by private citizens. It's always like this guy doesn't want to hire this group of people or trade with this group of people and that's wrong. Ok, so it's morally wrong according to you, so what? I mean, it's great you have an opinion and all, but the Constitution clearly gives them a right to association that allows them to make such decisions.

The whole mindset created as a result of the civil rights movement is extremely wrongheaded and shows a pretty clear failure at understanding human rights. Human rights should never be considered positive where people are obligated to do something for you, but instead negative where neither one of you are obligated to serve the other. It figures that a socialist like MLK would **** that up.
Click to expand...

No, people discriminate against others, often using violence and intimidation to prevent them from having the same rights, such as the right to vote. And they don't change until you make them change.

The constitution pretty clearly does not give you the right to treat other people like dung. It definitely doesn't give you the right to bomb a church because you are upset that they want equal rights.

It figures that somebody whose an apologist for ****ing Imperial Japan who also be an apologist for white supremacists.
 
faithful_servant said:
We have laws that state EXACTLY that. The problem is that when they get violated, liberals want to focus on protecting potential victims by granting them special status, instead of protecting them by making causing them harm so painful to the perps, that they won't do it.
Click to expand...

But then you get people crying about how the bigots are the "real victims". I approve of punishing those who refuse to treat their fellow Americans like.....well.....fellow Americans, but we have to keep in mind that it's not really an either or thing. You can protect people from discrimination and punish those who discriminate.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Clearly you have me confused with jdog21 :doh

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

So you are claiming you never posted on this thread, which, as stated by jdog21, is based on whining about civil rights?

Yes, you are right. Your eagerness to dismiss others as "pathetic" because you don't have an actual case is pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom