Supremes rule racist policies to fight racism is unconstitutional...go figure

Red1966 · Apr 22, 2014

canndo said:
Where does it say that? I am in favor of the sick, the poor, the disadvantaged, doesn't matter what race or gender. A short review of the rightist portion of the court will show you that they are not in favor of such things as the ADA, Unions, or one man one vote, hell, they aren't even in favor of voting.if those who are doing it are not in the upper classes.

None of that is true.

Red1966 · Apr 22, 2014

canndo said:
Not necessarily. If there are minorities who are discriminated against and a law is enacted to try to prevent that discrimination on institutional levels, that is not racist. If it were found that banks were refusing to lend to those who were left handed and a law was passed to alleviate that, it would not be racist.

Affirmative action mandates discrimination. Is this say everything backwards day for you?

Red1966 · Apr 22, 2014

canndo said:
When there is institutional bias toward one class of person over another for extended periods of time, these sorts of laws become necessary in order to adjust the balance. Affirmative action is much like the other argument going on about vaccines. Now that Polio seems no longer to be a threat, many have come to believe that it never was one. Now that affirmative action seems to have worked, we tend to believe that it was never needed. I do not know when it will not be needed any longer. Isn't desegregation racist as well?

Vaccines=affirmative action. Going for full retard today?

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2014

Red1966 said:
Affirmative action mandates discrimination.

it doesn't though.

affirmative action sets a goal of working towards equality.

is this "say everything backwards day" for you, AKA every single day of your entire, bitter life?

tightpockt · Apr 22, 2014

making hiring decisions based on race is by definition racist.

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2014

Red1966 said:
Vaccines=affirmative action. Going for full retard today?

he was making an analogy which you clearly lacked the mental faculties to comprehend.

no one is surprised.

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2014

UncleBuck said:
if people like you had their way, black people would still be property.

you still can't even bring yourself to admit that the denial of service to blacks in the south before civil rights caused harm, putting you at odds with HISTORY AS WE KNOW IT.

so you're still making the argument that the ending of racist practices in the south, including denial of service to blacks, reduced freedom rather than increased it?

why not just come out and say it? you think having to serve black people at your hotel or gas station reduces freedom because it reduces your freedom to be a racist. you're too racist to even consider the fact that it increases freedom for others and equality for all.

logic called, it wants you to stop fucking it in the ass without lube while waxing poetic about spooner, ya mooch.

Wax on....wax off - Mr. Miagi

I think anytime a person of any color is forced to use their property in ways they wish not to, the person or entity doing the forcing is wrong. Race is irrelevant, all people deserve the ability to self determination of their body and their property as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others to do the same.

I would not discriminate based on race if I ran a gas station, but you already know that. However I have no right to run other peoples lives, so I'd never tell another they must do anything with their property. How did you acquire this magical gift to run other peoples lives and determine what they will or will not do with their own property? Sounds alot like you share the same mindset as a prohibitionist.

Wilksey · Apr 22, 2014

canndo said:
What would you have done then, to aleviate the problem of blacks not being represented in all parts of society?

Nothing.

They're capable of living life without needing a nanny to hold their hand.

Why is your opinion of black people so low that you believe they need "special treatment" to make it in this society, like they were a bunch of retards or something?

EVERY ethnic group in this nation is capable of success, and EVERY ethnic group in this nation has achieved success. And the overwhelming majority of them achieved their success without the need of some bullshit racist nanny-state "affirmative action" law created by bleeding heart liberal idiots.

"Equality" means just that, equal, not favored, and this court decision allows individuals to gain opportunities equally on MERIT, not skin pigmentation. That's the way it should be.

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2014

Rob Roy said:
Wax on....wax off - Mr. Miagi

I think anytime a person of any color is forced to use their property in ways they wish not to, the person or entity doing the forcing is wrong. Race is irrelevant, all people deserve the ability to self determination of their body and their property as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others to do the same.

I would not discriminate based on race if I ran a gas station, but you already know that. However I have no right to run other peoples lives, so I'd never tell another they must do anything with their property. How did you acquire this magical gift to run other peoples lives and determine what they will or will not do with their own property? Sounds alot like you share the same mindset as a prohibitionist.

got it.

you fully and 100% support the denial of service to blacks that used to happen in the south and will refuse to admit that it caused harm.

protip: the government had to step in and tell little racists like you that you weren't allowed to cause harm to others like that. you are the reason why your governmentless utopia can't exist.

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2014

Wilksey said:
Why is your opinion of black people so low that you believe they need "special treatment" to make it in this society, like they were a bunch of retards or something?

that seems to be your expressed belief, canndo and i simply acknowledge the centuries of persecution, institutional racism, and unequal access to opportunity that created the problem in the first place. the problem that you proudly proclaim you would do nothing to resolve.

Wilksey said:
"Equality" means just that, equal, not favored, and this court decision allows individuals to gain opportunities equally on MERIT, not skin pigmentation. That's the way it should be.

so it was OK for white people to get way, way ahead in this nation for centuries based on skin pigmentation rather than merit, but it's not OK for any other race to take steps toward equality and redress this centuries-in-the-making problem?

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2014

UncleBuck said:
got it.

you fully and 100% support the denial of service to blacks that used to happen in the south and will refuse to admit that it caused harm.

protip: the government had to step in and tell little racists like you that you weren't allowed to cause harm to others like that. you are the reason why your governmentless utopia can't exist.

You are quite a fabricator. I do not support people being racists. I try not to associate with them. However a person that is a racist has the same right to determine what they will do with their property as I do. They, nor you or I have ANY right to determine what others will do with their property though.

Logic called again. I couldn't really make out what it was saying, because it was laughing so hard and saying "Uncle Buck, man is he for real"...and they also said something about lube but I couldn't quite make it out.

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2014

Rob Roy said:
You are quite a fabricator. I do not support people being racists. I try not to associate with them. However a person that is a racist has the same right to determine what they will do with their property as I do. They, nor you or I have ANY right to determine what others will do with their property though.

so racists can cause harm to others based on their skin color and you think that's fine?

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2014

UncleBuck said:
so racists can cause harm to others based on their skin color and you think that's fine?

I think the only justifiable use of force is defensive. You do not. Despite your excellent ability to strawman, I will not be eating at your red herring restaurant tonight. Got to go lube logics ass, bye for now.

WORDZofWORDZCRAFT · Apr 22, 2014

UncleBuck said:
so racists can cause harm to others based on their skin color and you think that's fine?

black even know other blacks hold them down more than any white man in modern history

Winter Woman · Apr 22, 2014

UncleBuck said:
so your assertion is that blacks and minorities are "remedial" and would fail if put at the same level as a white person?

No where did I mention race. I said that there should not be a box to check for race and I also said that SAT scores and misc. tests should be the only determining factor on who gets to attend a university and those that need remedial classes should take them and then try for admittance. Anyone who can't do well on those tests more than likely will not do well in a university setting.

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2014

Rob Roy said:
I think the only justifiable use of force is defensive. You do not. Despite your excellent ability to strawman, I will not be eating at your red herring restaurant tonight. Got to go lube logics ass, bye for now.

since the united states government was DEFENDING the civil rights of blacks in the south, then you're saying that the united states' enforcement of civil rights was justifiable.

thanks for finally admitting that!

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2014

Winter Woman said:
No where did I mention race. I said that there should not be a box to check for race and I also said that SAT scores and misc. tests should be the only determining factor on who gets to attend a university and those that need remedial classes should take them and then try for admittance. Anyone who can't do well on those tests more than likely will not do well in a university setting.

so if you're not mentioning race, then who are these "remedial" types that you oppose to helping in this affirmative action thread?

Rob Roy · Apr 22, 2014

UncleBuck said:
since the united states government was DEFENDING the civil rights of blacks in the south, then you're saying that the united states' enforcement of civil rights was justifiable.

thanks for finally admitting that!

No. You cannot defend a persons "right" to impose on anothers rights or property without causing the puppy to vomit from chasing his tail. Why do you hate puppies so much?

UncleBuck · Apr 22, 2014

Rob Roy said:
No. You cannot defend a persons "right" to impose on anothers rights or property without causing the puppy to vomit from chasing his tail. Why do you hate puppies so much?

so you're saying that black americans were demanding "special rights" instead of civil rights by wanting to be able to shop at the same stores as white americans?

are you saying that blacks' quest for civil rights caused harm to those poor, defenseless white racist business owners, who were harming no one by denying service to blacks?

please reconcile your logic here. it's about as messy as your room is.

canndo · Apr 23, 2014

Red1966 said:
You're really trying to claim SCOTUS is right-wing?

I am.

it is.

Supremes rule racist policies to fight racism is unconstitutional...go figure

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member