The Supremes have righted another long time wrong

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by oilfieldace

What part of merit is only qualification that should be considered didn’t you understand.

I understood. What you don't understand is your belief that Merit is the only thing that should be considered is not how things work in the real world (Whether you have Affirmative Action or you don't)

In high school you didn't give a crap about grades so how did you get your first job? Something else was considered besides your GPA.

Liberals did not invent Racism. People who thought like the late Senator Strom Thurmond invented racism. How many years was he in the Republican party?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

I understood. What you don't understand is your belief that Merit is the only thing that should be considered is not how things work in the real world (Whether you have Affirmative Action or you don't)

In high school you didn't give a crap about grades so how did you get your first job? Something else was considered besides your GPA.

Liberals did not invent Racism. People who thought like the late Senator Strom Thurmond invented racism. How many years was he in the Republican party?

bahahhaaaa nonsense. all of it. you keep mentioning Thurmond when it was the Democratic party that led the south to secede from the union, ushered in over a century of segregation and jim crow.


affirmative action is exactly the type of blatant racism of the Democratic party. so why do you support them?

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you keep mentioning Thurmond when it was the Democratic party that led the south to secede from the union, ushered in over a century of segregation and jim crow.


affirmative action is exactly the type of blatant racism of the Democratic party. so why do you support them?

1. Democrats from the south ushered in over a century of segregation and Jim Crow. President John F. Kennedy was in the democratic party. He took steps to remedy Jim Crow. He sent the National Guard down to the University of Alabama so that blacks could register for class. They were being blocked by Dixiecrat George Wallace. This was when Joe Namath was the starting QB for the football team.

2. President Kennedy actually started the Civil Rights Act that LBJ ultimately got implemented.

3. Affirmative Action was put in to encourage decision makers to consider qualified people from minority groups for employment. It was not put in so that a student with a 2.5 GPA would get into college or hired for a job over a student with a 3.5 GPA. In many examples this did happen. A minority student with a 2.5 got admitted into college over a student with a 3.5 GPA who did not belong to a minority group. This scenerio also occurred when the student with the 2.5 did not belong to a minority group ( Example Bush43 getting into Harvard MBA with just a 2.7 GPA in History from Yale).

4. The evil democrats from the south are not the entire democratic party. Until one accepts that, then you can't have honest debate about the history of the south.

5. The merit concept that OFA was talking about only works in sports (when ownership wants to win) the best players will play and be on the team regardless of race. Even this did not happen in College Football prior to 1970. The Southeastern Conference and the South Western conference did not allow Black players to be on the team. This changed after 1970 when the intergrated team from the University of Southern California defeated the University of Alabama 42-21 (at the time the Alabama team, all of the players were white). Coach Bryant was not allowed to recruit black players prior to 1970. After that game the following year Coach Bryant was allowed to recruit black players. Others school in the conference adopted the same practice.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

The court did not say you could not discriminate. It said you couldn't do so indiscriminately. Also, you could not "stereotype", or generalize, an entire demographic by inference without metrics.

They correctly opined that it was unconstitutional to broadly assume that a demographic was inherently dumb, which would likely make them ideal Dumb-o-crat voters in the future. But it is still OK to prove they are dumb and to set target levels of dumbness and measurable metrics to show that they are less dumb at a future point in time.

That sets up an awkward conundrum for the Dumb-o-crats. If they pick a metric such as because the inner city incarceration rate is too high for that demographic; they would have to pick a target rate to achieve and measure against it periodically. Obviously, it would also mean that if they were from a lower crime area, then they don't get the exception and subsequently would marginalize those from the safer areas that are actually a little smarter than the rest of the demographic.

Does not take much brain exercise to see how that would be gerrymandered around by "influencing" the crime rate statistics. However, it creates a perverse incentive situation. For example: they would have to end not arresting and prosecuting criminals of that demographic to keep the crime rate up for them, thus keeping and extending the period of time it applies according to the published metric.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

For those intellectuals that think a particular demographic in a particular environment just need more of other peoples endless money to change their situation, faggit about it. It's ridiculous bullshit that has been proven time and again to be a pointless myth. It's all really about parental involvement and always has been. Perhaps some exceptions could be claimed between 1964 to 1970. But facts are facts.

There was a paper published around 1982, I believe. It was a Doctoral thesis from a typically indoctrinated Demonicrat type who set out to prove why more of other people's money was needed to improve the intelligence of a certain inner city demographic. To their credit, they followed the money and the results from research data and ultimately changed their position, based on the data, to conclude that the success rate for any child, in any setting, was most directly dependent on parental involvement.

Don't believe me, then ask the Googlie.
Hey the Googlie: inner city education success based on parental involvement

Two examples, one is famous - Dr Ben Carson and my own humble experience
Dr Carson was raised in an inner city with an illiterate, single mother. Here was the perfect recipe for habitual failure. However, the mom critter was a determined and tenacious critter who did not what him to end up like her and the only way to avoid that was to push him to excel and hold him accountable.

She would allegedly "proof read" his home work and mark it up in red and write encouraging remarks like You can do better or is that really good enough. End result was little Ben would go back to the grind stone and put more effort and ultimately achieved high grades and excellent study and writing skills. It was not until much later in his educational pursuits and achievements that he learned his mother was illiterate and couldn't even read.

In my own case; I was highly involved in my kid's schools and education. I volunteered to do much of the IT work and was often seen in the school, both during and well after school hours working. Subsequently, I had a lot of interaction with both the teachers and administration. Out side of that, I did not allow anything less than their best and kept a sharp eye on their work. I know, what a PITA! However, I could both read/write and walk/chew gum at the same time.

Net result was most of my many kids achieved greatly and ended up with post-graduate degrees and high paying jobs. Everyone of them have thanked me at one time or another for my steadfast determination and persistence in being involved. BTW: some were mildly notable athletes along the way. They essentially said thank you for demonstrating accountability, excellence in their works and instilling in them, from a young age, that schooling did not end at grade 12 and that learning was a life long process and yes little Virginia, you are going to college, but it is entirely up to you where and for what..

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

The court did not say you could not discriminate. It said you couldn't do so indiscriminately. Also, you could not "stereotype", or generalize, an entire demographic by inference without metrics.

Most people believe that one hundred years of Jim Crow segregation was wrong. Most people believe two wrongs don't make a right. With that being said how should the government try to make the playing field level for those were wronged in the past?

President Kennedy sent the National Guard so black students could register for class in 1963 at Univ of Alabama. LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act. Should more be done to right a wrong or has the Government done enough?

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act. Should more be done to right a wrong or has the Government done enough?

LBJ also destroyed the Black family structure by herding families into huge government housing projects and telling them “The government is now the Man of the House and will take care of you………for your vote”.

It has worked amazingly well. The Democrats can just about count on 90+% of the Black vote.

And what have Blacks really got for their loyalty?
Left behind.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

LBJ also destroyed the Black family structure by herding families into huge government housing projects and telling them “The government is now the Man of the House and will take care of you………for your vote”.

It has worked amazingly well. The Democrats can just about count on 90+% of the Black vote.

And what have Blacks really got for their loyalty?
Left behind.

I recollect LBJ had a plan to retain that demographic vote for 200 years or so. At least, so he said. He seemed more interested in their vote than their well being -- IMMHO.

Seems eerily familiar to the Slo-Joe BJ for the millennial crew with spending more of other people's money to cancel the debt racked up for worthless degrees instead of taking on predatory colleges that peddle crap indoctrination for the government grants.

Ask not what your country can do to you, but what you can do to reduce those POS' and keep them on task.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Most people believe that one hundred years of Jim Crow segregation was wrong. Most people believe two wrongs don't make a right...

Your subscription to the Lib-Tard Gazette lapse?!? Dang! You got to keep up on how things operate these days. Ya'll just take down a few statues and have firey, but mostly peaceful looting and rioting and VIOLA! History is canceled, with no arrests made, and it all gets ignored. Never happened.Faggit about it.

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Liberals did not invent Racism. People who thought like the late Senator Strom Thurmond invented racism. How many years was he in the Republican party?

A few less than Robert Byrd.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

A few less than Robert Byrd.

JC, that's incorrect. Robert Byrd was never in the republican party. Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party in 1964. He remained in the republican party for the rest of his legislative career. Thirty is greater than zero, would you agree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

LBJ also destroyed the Black family structure by herding families into huge government housing projects and telling them “The government is now the Man of the House and will take care of you………for your vote”.

It has worked amazingly well. The Democrats can just about count on 90+% of the Black vote.

If the Merit concept that OFA mentioned in Post #23 is "the only thing that should be considered" was applied in deep south instead 100 plus years of Jim Crow segregation, there would not have been a need for LBJ's Civil Rights Act.

The constitution should have been enough. Southern politics got around that.

You are correct ever since the 1964 election at least 90% of the black vote has gone to the Democratic candidate in presidential elections. HRC may have only received 88% of the black vote when she ran against Trump.

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

JC, that's incorrect. Robert Byrd was never in the republican party. Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party in 1964. He remained in the republican party for the rest of his legislative career. Thirty is greater than zero, would you agree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

Haha. Wise ass. You’re right tho, the former Grand Kleagle was a democrat.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

[SNIP]

Two examples, one is famous - Dr Ben Carson and my own humble experience
Dr Carson was raised in an inner city with an illiterate, single mother. Here was the perfect recipe for habitual failure. However, the mom critter was a determined and tenacious critter who did not what him to end up like her and the only way to avoid that was to push him to excel and hold him accountable.

She would allegedly "proof read" his home work and mark it up in red and write encouraging remarks like You can do better or is that really good enough. End result was little Ben would go back to the grind stone and put more effort and ultimately achieved high grades and excellent study and writing skills. It was not until much later in his educational pursuits and achievements that he learned his mother was illiterate and couldn't even read.

[SNIP]

did not know that about carson's mother being illiterate.

thats awesome in how she fooled her son to get him good grades..