I am Forrest, I apporved of this message

[Unsavory]

At one point wasn't there a no-politics and no-religion discussion rule on this board? If that's been disregarded I might as well go nuts.

Tax the rich more. They can afford it.

Lower or maintain the tax on the poor and middle classes.

Don't give free money to people who've f'd themselves up on drugs. I know you don't want those people out on the street, but is it any better to tell people that even if they scramble their brains through substance abuse they'll get a free ride through life? Hell, dude. Insurance like that almost makes me want to do some extra experimenting myself. Almost.

Immigration is what this country is all about, but forcing kids to learn spanish in elementary school is a bunch of crap. People have a right to keep their own culture, but if they want to be able to live and thrive in this society, they need to know and respect this country's established culture as well.

Gay marriage. I don't truly have a problem with this, but would it hurt to call the union something else? While calling it "marriage" doesn't bother me, it seems generally understood that marriage is the bond between a man and a woman. As such, it seems appropriate to call this type of bonding something different.

Abortion? Too confusing. When does a being gain consciousness? When do they gain self-awareness of any kind? It seems harmless enough to abort a fetus when they are only a few cells without so much as a heartbeat, but where is the line drawn? Yes, it has been drawn, but appropriately? I'm not sure. I could expand on this, but I'm pretty sure I'd offend a lot of people if I did. I'm neutral on this issue. It's uncomfortable, and I don't have a strong opinion either way.

Just because I'm white doesn't mean I'm rich. I should be just as entitled to a much needed college grant as anyone else.

Taking "God" out of the pledge of allegience would be, in my opinion, truly shameful. If people choose to be athiest or agnostic, that's fine. They may even be right in that choice, but there are many people who choose to believe in God and taking that word away from the pledge of allegiance would be a slap in the face to not only these people, but those who founded our country. If you don't want to say that part of the pledge, nobody is making you, but it is what it is, and the people who choose to believe in God shouldn't be deprived this.

[Dr. Ted Nelson]

sampo, I listen to Ator and I have a rebuke to each of the statements he makes. So I guess that means Ator and I won't agree on many things.

This makes all the thoughts I have to share seem to Ator to have a left spin- not a factual spin as I see it. So do I convince him what I see is correct or do I respect his viewpoint?

I know what I would say- Convince him. I think compliance right now with any side seems like more of a spiritual commitment than anything. Its what I do because I care, just like a candidate who wants more supporters or a missionary who wants more converts or a muffin baker who wants to bake more muffins. Im no different.

[yousonuva]

Thanks Unsavory and Dr. Ted. You both saved me a lot of typing so's I can just say

"I agree with you both"

[BobJohnson]

sampo said:

I'm sorry about your mom.

And I'm pretty sure this discussion has little or nothing to do with the school you go to.

And I'm pretty sure you'll find reasonable, educated, non-brainwashed individuals on both sides of the gay marriage debate, let alone the economics strategies of political parties. And it is pure speculation whether or not the president is the person primarily responsible for the state of the economy, whatever president it might be.

And I simply responded to your stilted generalizations with concrete personal facts about my taxes.

Look, I'm fine disagreeing with you politically. And I think it's great that you're so passionate about your politics. But you should probably fine-tune your delivery so as not to be so insulting or condescending, or you're going to lose a lot of these arguments without your opponent even having to say a word. Perhaps your school has a nice rhetoric class or debate team.

That's ok Sampo. I will admit though, being 19, living with my parents, no job to boot, I can't really bash Bush hard like you can with Kerry or Clinton back in the day. I'm more of an "everybody" man, sure Bush may be giving you tax breaks and what not, but what about the people less fortunate.
My mom was a Social worker years ago, she worked in a group home for older people with disabilities, mainly veterans of 'Nam. I made good friends with a lot of these people, they found me less threatning. This where I developed empathy for people, My needs come 2nd compared to the community, family, and needy. Today I took what I learned from those people and not only vote for me, for people below me. It's a benefactor where you help me, I will return it.

P.S. Sampo, politics rarely was a "sit down let's have tea and gossip" thing. You don't have to win an argument, getting your point across is what matters (In that case, you and I are Champions)

[Ator]

Yup, Forrest, the thing you just spoke of is caused by the liberal Affirmitive Action. It sets quotas on how many minorities that MUST be allowed to join. Now does that law sound racist? I'd say so.

[yousonuva]

The problem with you saying all this is that you are speaking from your view only. You have to see what it's like to be raised in a life of disadvantage and you saying "Why don't you just get a job" or something is very narrow minded. It's about the way they were raised and taught a lot of wrong things or a lack of good things as bad and easy ways out has been all they've ever known. Please be a little more discreet.

And while many hard workers deserve their pay, it doesn't mean our economy structure is completely fair or justified. Just because some guy gets a good work ethic and goes on to build a company, should he be put at such a higher level than everyone else, therefore able to actually manipulate politics? I mean he definately deserves his due but the margin between a guy who does some hard work and a guy who struggles through life is monumental. The rich guy can buy maybe a hundred homes with all his $ while the other guy is so down he is worrying about his next meal. It is NOT a justified and balanced way of living. It's unfair. Once you go down to that level and THEN pull yourself back up to the top, I'll heed your opinions. As for now I'm sticking with my story.

[BobJohnson]

Obviously Forrest and Ator come from very caucasian communities. You talk about how affirmative action is being forced into something (a lottery you say), and not having a real chance a winning. What about the African-Americans, weren't they forced into something about 400 years ago that would make it very hard for them to get ahead in life today. I don't agree with affirmative action either, but they need an education slightly more than us. Hey, we thought they would die out at one point, they're staying.

[Ator]

LMAO! You think i'm racist for believeing that rich people should keep their money and that Affirmitive Action is reminiscent of segregation? OK man, whatever you think...

[BobJohnson]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You got it. Affirmative action is not segregation, it's giving equal oppurtunity to the less fortunate, you can get into college just fine, why not let them have equal chances. You're going to the same college and classes, where's the segregation in that?

[Ator]

You don't seem to understand. It sets QUOTAS for how many minorities MUST join/enroll. Here, i'll set an example for you.

ConHugeCo has 20 job slots to fill. They have 100 applications, 10 of which are from minorities, and 90 from whites. The affirmitive action states that 25% of their job population must be in a minority (don't know correct number, just setting an example). Lets say that 2 of those minorities have degrees, and 25 of whites have degrees. < *DISCLAIMER I'm NOT suggesting that minorities are dumb for saying that they get less degrees, i'm just trying to illustrate an example. >

Now, since affirmitive action says that they must have 25% minorities (dunno correct number), that means that 5 of the minority folk must be taken no matter what. So, they will pick the two with the degrees, and then the other 3 without them. From the white side, they have more than enough applicants with degrees to fill in the rest.
----------------------------------
So, based on my example, this means that they are filling in the work force with less certified individuals, and denying some college-educated applicants a job to fill the quota.



Now, if i'm totally wrong on how affirmitive action works, then slap me in the face, show me the way it REALLY works, and make me apologize.

[yousonuva]

Yeah but even a retard can operate the Turbine Engines at ConHugeCo. That company is run by bufoons.

[BobJohnson]

Ator said:

You don't seem to understand. It sets QUOTAS for how many minorities MUST join/enroll. Here, i'll set an example for you.

ConHugeCo has 20 job slots to fill. They have 100 applications, 10 of which are from minorities, and 90 from whites. The affirmitive action states that 25% of their job population must be in a minority (don't know correct number, just setting an example). Lets say that 2 of those minorities have degrees, and 25 of whites have degrees. < *DISCLAIMER I'm NOT suggesting that minorities are dumb for saying that they get less degrees, i'm just trying to illustrate an example. >

Now, since affirmitive action says that they must have 25% minorities (dunno correct number), that means that 5 of the minority folk must be taken no matter what. So, they will pick the two with the degrees, and then the other 3 without them. From the white side, they have more than enough applicants with degrees to fill in the rest.
----------------------------------
So, based on my example, this means that they are filling in the work force with less certified individuals, and denying some college-educated applicants a job to fill the quota.



Now, if i'm totally wrong on how affirmitive action works, then slap me in the face, show me the way it REALLY works, and make me apologize.

Ator, you just basically called all minorities lazy, dumb underachievers which they are not. Minorities work very hard, they do the jobs we don't do. Can you put shingles on a roof? fix a toilet? build a house? I'm sure you can't. But when minorities want to get a college degree and get a comfy job and make good money, it's segregation and unfair? Do caucasians need all the jobs in the world? Do we need a "White America"? This country was built on minorities, the Irish being the first and now the latinos being the recent. I don't hate what you said personally Ator, but their is a underlying hatred you have it sounds with people getting a better chance for a better life. Like yousonuva said, it doesn't take an Einstein to operate machines in factories, the world is made up of average people.

P.S. What if you were of a minority Ator? what would you think then?

[Ator]

Ator said:

< *DISCLAIMER I'm NOT suggesting that minorities are dumb for saying that they get less degrees, i'm just trying to illustrate an example. >

I know that the world is made up of average people, but unfortunately the companies don't look at it that way. I'm just speaking the truth here. I have no hate for minorities. I have no reason to. To claim that I do is foolish based of what I feel about Affirmitive Action and taxes.

If I were a minority, I would think "Damn, the jobs are already filled. Better look somewhere else!"

[yousonuva]

And remember to boycott ConHugeCo!




;D

[Blurryeye]

Keep in mind that quantitative measures of ability like test scores, grades, or possession of a degree are not the only criteria for getting into college or getting a job. Plenty of dumb people have been able to get degrees or good grades by taking easy classes or just filling the requirements. Affirmative action does help diversify the criteria for selection beyond just standard concrete measures of ability.

I think the real question here is how valuable is a minority culture and viewpoint in an institution? Affirmative action gives value to the simple fact of being from a minority race, but how valuable is that to an institution really? That's what's being debated here. Some people think that the standard measures of ability and performance should be given most if not all of the weight. Others think that diversity of a group is more valuable than similarity of performance and background among group members.

It's also about freedom to form an institution any way the people running it want to. If someone believes that having a homogeneous group is the best way to succeed, should they be able to run their business that way? This type of freedom is certainly a part of American culture and values. The freedom to make your living the way you see fit. But there's also the urge to keep the playing field level and fair. Does forced diversity keep things fair?

There are many levels to this issue. I'm just trying to point some of them out.