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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (77184)	2/24/2003 3:24:30 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bill, I knew alot of folks in the sixties in the north who said they didnt object to lester maddox refusing to serve food to blacks. I said what if it was a black family whose child was hungry. They would say Tough--this is america-- a store keeper can serve who he wants. And then i said what if they had no place to sleep and were turned away by the Motel--same answer--even if it was freezing cold??. In defense of John, i think he is remembering those types of arguments against the 1964 civil rights law and wrongly applying it to his overall view of AA. Many folks do that. AA was is a valid means to right wrongs by essentially breaking a tie or a close call in a certain way. When it gets out of control as it might have in Michigan, it becomes quotas and those are bad. Mike

To: LindyBill who wrote (77184)	2/24/2003 3:28:44 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Re:<<I think, if you end by being wheeled on the down ramp to hell, your punishment should be to set and watch continuous showings of "God's and Generals." Now it you want to see some "Christian Warriors," there's your Movie!>> I would vote for that...with Stonewall's prayer with his cook on a "do loop" during the intermission. <ggg>

To: LindyBill who wrote (77184)	2/24/2003 3:50:16 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

So don't slander the name of the anti-affirmative action movement with "Racism." It is not true. I don't think I've ever typed with someone who is quite so eager to find non arguments with which to argue. If you check back through the post to which you responded, you will see I, very carefully, did not label the anti affirmative action movement as racist. If you wish to continue to assert I did, then we'll just have to quit arguing about this. It is, of course, not relevant to the thread anyway, something I tried to indicate by only offering the link. I'll offer a quick summary of my view, then you can take your shot, once again, if you wish, but I'm heading on to other topics. What you are calling the anti affirmative action movement is, in my view, a coalition, exactly as are a lot if not all serious social movements. I explicitly offered my view that folk like you are not racist, nor dupes, nor naive, just hold views about the way to a more diverse society that won't work. Can't work. So it's a disagreement. I also consider the funding sources for these cases, as Herbert noted, to come from groups that are strongly averse to the kind of diverse society we generated after the 50s thanks to the civil rights movement, to feminism, to the gay rights movement, and to many others. Your shot.