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: CYBERKEN who wrote (341145)	1/10/2003 12:45:04 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

If we are true Americans and not Confederate barbarians who wish to break the American Constitutional contract merely because we fail to get our way amidst a legitimate legal struggle, then blacks should not fear anything. If we have law and legitimate legal procedures whereby petitions to society are made, and blacks choose to legitimately exploit those procedures to further their agenda, they ought not fear at all. When Clinton lied to our courts we said repeatedly that we are a nation of laws and that as a result the lawbreaker had to pay. But what you claim here is that whites will abandon law and our American ideals to kill blacks should the blacks succeed at exercising their American right. If this is true then the problem with America has very little to do with blacks and everything to do with whites. Oddly, blacks have maintained this exact thing about whites for as long as the historical record has existed. Blacks should be as free as we are, and yet you claim they are not. If so, then this is the friggin’ problem and not reparations. Liberal whites can successfully petition government to literally murder innocent children, even forcing you yourself to year-after-friggin-year spend your own tax dollars both here in America and abroad to support it, and yet whites need not generally fear being killed because of it. But should liberal blacks seriously threaten to successfully petition government for a few measly pennies, you claim a race war will result, even against blacks who fought against reparations. If true then I submit whites have some serious problems with their damned priorities, and that rather than whine against blacks, we should see a friggin' shrink because we DEFINEY some sick fokes. If Americans can turn physical might to slaughter other Americans simply because they are being American, then certainly foreigners can turn physical might against Americans. As I said to you earlier, if whites should turn against blacks simply because blacks sucessfully petition government, then America will cease to exist as we know it. America's enemies will have complete justification to nuke and poison us with impunity. Our technology will not help us because large numbers of Americans themselves will be against us, even folks like me will help try by stealth to bring it all down. In the very unlikely event monetary reparations should come about, they would be mere pennies-- a one time payment of pennies to the children of folks who had everything taken from them and who now live with the stigma of that horror. Reparations are almost literally nothing at all, and they are not our problem. Neither are the liberals, as wrong as they are on nearly everything. The problem with America is found in Americans who do not embrace our law and ideals, whether native born or immigrant, enough to protect them by legitimate process. Moreover, the problem exists with those who would hold the sword over other Americans to use it should they lose in a legitimate American struggle. These are the people who, as in the 1860’s, threaten to destroy our nation.

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (341145)	1/10/2003 9:21:25 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Respond to of 769670

"We are seeing today the same phenomenon on a slower scale as we allow the left to dismiss the legitimate arguments against Affirmative Action as "racist"." That gutless wonder of an administration is going to stay out of the most important affirmative action case in a decade, hoping that the Pickering ploy will be enough to mollify the RW. Satisfied Cy? "White House set to stay out of affirmative-action case By Frank J. Murray THE WASHINGTON TIMES President Bush is unlikely to join a Supreme Court battle over whether public universities may favor racial or ethnic groups for admissions. Top Stories Two sources close to the administration deliberations told The Washington Times that the White House has received a legal brief from the Justice Department backing white students who say they were denied admission to the University of Michigan because of "race-conscious measures." "A brief that opponents of racial preferences would be happy with was drafted and submitted to the White House," said one person who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I hope the White House will not let its political considerations override the reasoned analysis of the Justice Department." However, the consensus among administration officials working on the issue is that the White House will not file any brief with the Supreme Court. But several sources said things could change before the Jan. 16 filing deadline. Many lawyers, who have opposing views on affirmative action, indicated that racism accusations that unseated Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott as Senate Republican leader also limited the president's political options to oppose "affirmative action" in public education. Mr. Bush has long supported racial-diversity initiatives based on merit. Before what one lawyer called "the Lott mess," affirmative-action opponents had expected the Bush administration to go on record against plans such as those challenged in Michigan. Now, there's plenty of speculation. "Lott's mess likely makes the White House's decision-making process on this issue slightly more complicated, but only from a political perspective," said Leslie Thornton, who was chief of staff in the Department of Education during much of the Clinton era and now is a partner at Patton Boggs law firm. She doubted the Lott affair was likely to convert Mr. Bush on affirmative action. "Before Lott, there was no chance the administration would have supported affirmative action in the Supreme Court and some chance it might have officially opposed it. After Lott, the Bush administration probably calculates it can still get away with not supporting affirmative action by doing nothing next week, but not with actually opposing it," Ms. Thornton said. Opponents of the Michigan program say the extreme would be a political switch to favor such programs, which appears highly unlikely. They also declined suggestions that the administration take a neutral stance and simply favor diversity. Justices are expected to hear arguments by April on appeals from white students who say they were refused admission to University of Michigan undergraduate schools because of race-conscious practices. Those measures include factoring a 20-point bonus for American Indian, black and Hispanic undergraduate applicants, and other less-specific plans that promote diversity in its law school. The key question before the Supreme Court is whether racial preferences by tax-supported universities violate the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. If the court rules they do, public higher-education programs would have the task of showing a "compelling interest" to increase racial diversity. Justices did not ask Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson to file a brief, as they often do. One affirmative-action advocate knowledgeable about Michigan's program was skeptical that the administration would pass up the opportunity to oppose it. "The news would be if Ted Olson did the unpredictable and filed in support of affirmative action. Man bites dog. I'm not sure that would influence the justices, but it would have considerable impact on the editorial pages," the source said. White House spokesmen said that the president has a stated preference for merit-based "affirmative access." They said the filing decision is under review by the Justice Department, which did not comment. The University of Michigan student newspaper advised the president in an editorial on Monday to "Get off the fence" and support affirmative action. A coalition of 11 Hispanic groups yesterday dispatched a letter citing political reasons why Mr. Bush should support the use of race as an admissions factor to help equalize the percentage of Latinos pursuing college degrees. "We urge you to keep your commitment to the Latino community and support us in our endeavor to keep in place the modest type of affirmative action before the Supreme Court now," said the letter, whose signers include the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Council of La Raza. Mr. Bush spelled out his "affirmative access" stand during a presidential campaign debate in October 2000, drawing attention to the guaranteed admission for the top 10 percent of high school classes to Texas public colleges. "In Texas that increased diversity based on merit," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. Curt A. Levey, spokesman for the Center for Individual Rights, which would welcome presidential support for the white students it represents, said his organization is focused on what the Supreme Court, not the White House, will do. "Racial preferences are just a form of racial politics," Mr. Levey said. "I think the Lott situation is a good example of why it is wrong for the government to play with race." washtimes.com