Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119404)	12/25/2000 12:15:13 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Your argument falls apart when you look at what happens when other people of color get in this country without the hindrance of crippling crutches and excuses of mistreatment from the past and do exceedingly well. But thinking about those examples only makes the "institutionally helpless" look that much worse.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119404)	12/25/2000 12:33:48 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Unions often bargain for benefits for retirees, such as enhanced pension and insurance. There have also been periods where veterans were discriminated against in hiring, such as the Vietnam vets. One could also argue the preference hiring of vets is to compensate for those who lose out time from the competitive work force to serve the government. There is similar recompense for mothers who are provided family leave and given their jobs back. Affirmative action is just an entitlement to someone, regarless of whether they were discriminated against on a personal basis. There also should be some timetable for removal of such preferences when the cause of deficiences is caused by the ineptitude of the local governments and neighborhoods in handling education, crime, and drug abuse, rather than discrimination per se.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119404)	12/25/2000 12:47:12 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Kenneth you should really think about this one. Your comparison is completely wrong. You've stretched so far you're looking backward. Compensation for the service of one's country is never enough. What price death? Stick to chasing the hot coffee spillers and work place fraud cases. That reminds me, thanks for the last 6 premium increases you and your clients have rewarded us all with. Have a good Christmas. alan w

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119404)	12/25/2000 4:04:26 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 769667

Many of these benefits were not in existence when the individuals went into the service. They were awarded after the fact. So? Ever held a job and got a raise? That money was "not in existence" when you got the job; it is awarded "after the fact". Should raises and promotions be illegal? You should rethink your position. You're so far off the beam you've left the panet.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119404)	12/25/2000 4:18:26 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

So far, nobody on this thread has really answered the argument. Try this: Message 15079586 And,yes, the GI Bill was passed after the guys who benefited had entered the service. So? How does this differ from you taking a job and, after you have done so, the company improves it benefits and you get the benefit of that? Affirmative action is just another way of leveling the playing field for people who deserve a chance to compete. Affirmative action is Jim Crow applied against a different group of people. It is still discrimination by legal means. The original purpose of the civil rights movement was to eliminate discrimination; now it has come full circle and has institutionalized it again. Your arguments in defense of affirmative action are becoming increasingly byzantine.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119404)	12/25/2000 6:08:17 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Let me point out another difference between veterans benefits and affirmative action. Eligibility for veterans benefits does not depend on race or ethnicity; anyone is eligible who meets the service requirements regardless of skin color or background. Affirmative action is entirely dependent on these factors that it is otherwise illegal to use as selection criteria. At this point I believe your argument that affirmative action is no different than any other ordinary common benefit or right has been demolished. It is racial discrimination. Period.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (119404)	12/26/2000 7:41:17 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 769667

Am I on ignore? Message 15079698 This boils down to a question of arbitrariness. Affirmative Action is arbitrary, veterans benefits are not. We would not consider membership in Veterans of Foreign Wars to be arbitrary because it requires veteran status. We would consider membership in a country club to be arbitrary if it required one to be white. One has an objective standard, veteran's status, which is an earned benefit and is a value we as a society feel should be rewarded. One is arbitrary and unearned, namely the color of the skin one was born with. Veterans deserve the status because they have performed certain actions which earn the merit. The color of one's skin is not earned and any preferential treatment is undeserved. Affirmative Action is fundamentally racist. Its implicit premise is blacks are naturally inferior and incapable of achievement on the merit of their own intelligence and need a helping hand from whitey. Our society would be better served by addressing the root of the real inequalities by such mechanisms as school vouchers, which would allow black children who want to learn to go to schools that are conducive to learning. As opposed to gang battlegrounds and inner city social experiments. Its instructive that Al Sharpton is opposed to vouchers, while sending his children to private school. Here's a hometown example. A buddy of mine had a C average in high school (I had a B average) and got 300 points lower in his SAT than I did. We applied to the same college at the same time for the same semester. He got admitted on fast track, I had to wait for an opening. He's Vietnamese. Is this justice, to either party? What kind of message does this convey? Derek