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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (158444)	1/19/2003 7:38:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586653

You don't eliminate 200 years of abuse in 40. You eliminate 2000 years of abuse in a second. You just stop the abuse. You don't eliminate the effects of 200 years of abuse in 40, but its crazy to try to comepensate for all past abuse. You can never know when it is enough compensation some people will always ask for more. Also the compensation abuses people who are innocent of the original offense. Liberals are smart enough to know that coddling people only makes them dependent. For a group that is smart enough to know that to often they do coddle people or support the idea of coddling people. That's not true.......before drugs were plentiful in this country, the level of alcoholism was higher in minority groups than the mainstream white population. It is true, the overall drug problem (including alchahol as a drug) was not as bad and illegitmacy was not close to being as bad, as each problem is now. There are societal wrongs committed by the society at large and then there are individual wrongs.....crimes committed by individuals. Please, lets not dumb down here. If you can't make a convincing case, concede that point and move on.......please. Its not dumbing anything down. Any crime or wrong is commited by an idividual or a lot of individuals. If a majorit of indivudals in the past commited a particular crime that doesn't mean individuals born after the crimes ended are responsible for it just because they come from the same society. Where have you seen AA demand retribution from descendants of slave owners? I've seen it argued that way a number of times both directly and more indirectly saying that blacks are worse off because of slavery (sometimes "because of slavery and jom crow) so we need to give them this as compensation. "Should the son of Colin Powell get bonus points over some white person from a poor backwater in apalachia? No because you're not comparing apples to apples. At UM and most places with AA Colin Powell's son (or perhaps it is better to say his grandson considering the age of his son) would get bonus points. As for comparing appels to apples I comparing some people who may or may not get bonus points to other people who may or may not get such points. Obvisouly all these people will be different but I am comparing the same fact about all of them. The experiences that got the poor whites of Appalachia to where they are are not the same as those of poor blacks. And the experience of a poor black girl from the Mississippi is different from that of a poor black boy from Harlem, but both of them and the poor white person from Appalachia are all disadvanged. However, most universities give pts based on socio economic status and clearly Appalachians would benefit. At UM they get the same points as Powell's grandson. That doesn't seem fair. Poor black students get both sets of bonus points. If I remember correctly, blacks make up over 11% of the population. Now lets see.....there is one Secretary in the president's cabinet....out of 14 or 7%. And one National Sec. Advisor.......do you still want to talk about tokenism? Wrong 2 cabinet members that makes about the same percent as the general population. Actually slightly higher. whitehouse.gov And ig you count Bush's top advisors I would say 2 out of 4 or 5 are black. That makes 40 or 50%. Nice story? You tell your version to the poor, elitist. What kind of argument is that? You say that schools are straved of resources as white kids move to private school. i point out that their resources have increased (and I would add that most white students do not go to private school), and your argument is to call me an elitist. You're stuck, aren't you? Is that by intent, or is there real confusion on your part? Again you fail to actually develop a logical argument for your idea. The only diference now is that instead of being "elitist" I am instead "stuck". Tim