End Affirmative Action. Yes / No & Why

You are an advocate for AA. AA is unconstitutional - you're so busy virtue signaling that you can't be bothered with the rule of law.

As a leftist, you only subscribe to the rule of law if it helps advance your sick agenda.

Cite for me the clause of the Constitution that authorizes the government to discriminate??

 

I assumed you were a white Christian male....because you take white privilege for granted. What makes you think I don’t accept you?

 

It was unconstitutional for women to vote. It was unconstitutional for blacks to vote. I guess those are good examples of discrimination

 

The Constitution has been amended, properly so.

So again, cite for me the clause of the Constitution that authorizes AA.

 

because you blame all the misfortunes of humankind on those of my category.

 

And this is exactly what is happening since discrimination is the very cause of quotas (Affirmative Action). For example, Asian Americans are today being discriminated against when they are applying to college which means there is no real equality of opportunity in contemporary America.It has also been proven that boys are being discriminated against by their teachers when it comes to grading where teachers use their female bias to grade boys lower than they grade girls for the very same assignments.

To certain people, race is more important than competence.

What the heck is "reverse discrimination"? Discrmination is discrimination.

What is it that you are being denied? You have a fancy job, you give fancy lecture, you have written fancy books that are bestsellers (at least according to yourself) and you are married to a Wall Street millionaire.

How are you as a woman being denied anything?

 

You're going to "summer camp".

 

Now we have your own self-styled, subjective definition of "reverse discrimination", and you are certainly entitled to your somewhat tortured opinion -- given that today is 2019, and not (NOT) 1919....

Now, I'll venture my opinion, which is much more direct, and goes right to the heart of the issue:

Anything that discriminates FOR or AGAINST any citizen of the United States is EXECRABLE and should be completely forbidden! Indeed, the establishment of pure equality-before-the-law became part of the foundation of this nation in the mid-1960's with the Equal Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Very shortly afterward, however, "Affirmative Action" entered the national scene, which re-established the terrible concept which preaches, "some are more equal than others".

That any one in this country who is an "educator" could condone, excuse, or rationalize treating one citizen differently than another represents the worst kind of poison in our society. Either we are free citizens, completely equal-before-the-law, and judged on the basis of merit and accomplishment, or, we are just a gaggle of manipulated "useful idiots" to be used at will by any unfair, totalitarian movement that can thrust its way to the apex of power.

 

Laws have been created ......or ammended to help those the constitution discriminaged for hundreds of years

 

Okay Renee, lol... let's see if we can walk you through this

Upon what constitutional authority are those laws based??

Congress can't just pass any old law they want - at least they're not supposed to be able to.

If they are passing laws without constitutional authority, then they are acting outside of the law. The laws themselves are illegal.

They get away with acting illegally b/c citizens like yourself don't understand the Constitution nor what the proper functions of our Federal Government are under our republican system.

So again I ask you, cite which clause of the Constitution authorizes the FedGov to discriminate??

 

The legal status of affirmative action was solidified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark legislation prohibited discrimination in voting, public education and accommodations, and employment in firms with more than fifteen employees.

 

Or In Other Words -

The 14th Amendment, my first choice to repeal, passed under duress, Section 1 is a 2 Way Street.

. . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


That is the excuse the Supreme Court has used to support
"creeping Central Gov't".
Time for it to work for Straight, White Men too!



The government has become the most major purveyor of racism
in our society today.
That's what happens with excessive counting people by race.
(gender, sexual preference, etc.)



Moi

Factoid
s are the most common
Visa Over Stays!​

 

And it's unconstitutional.

The Constitution applies to government, not citizens. This is one of the many instances in which you leftists fly off the rails.

There was a case brought b/4 the SC some years ago where Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, stated that in the coming years AA would no longer be needed and would then be unconstitutional.

Clarence Thomas writing for the minority agreed that, indeed, it would be unconstitutional, just as it is unconstitutional today.

The Civil Rights Act, indeed no common law, can supercede the Constitution.

So you've cited a law - what clause in the Constitution permits that law??

Again - you haven't answered the question.

 

One of my favorite intellectuals, Thomas Sowell.

At 27:00-28:00 they touch on the Sandra Day Oconner - Clarence Thomas reference that I made.

You should watch the whole thing though - Thomas Sowell is a great man.

Progressives/Liberals don't like him b/c he's an independent thinker and an honest man. Both are qualities loathed by the left.

Interestingly he started out his academic career as a Marxist. He abandoned that poisonous philosophy as he was eventually able to see through the lies of left.

 

I find it absolutely repulsive that we still in 2019 find people like you who think it is both important and necessary to categorise people on basis of their physical attributes.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Reverse discrimination can also be an attitude. Seriously Renee how do you know this is what the other poster thinks?
I don't see a lot of victim envy (from white males) but I do see a lot of victim overload.

 

Stop calling it "reverse discrimination". We should do our best to fight Orwellian Newspeak and not do it a favour by using its terminology. Discrimination is discrimination. The reverse of discrimination is Affirmative Action.

 

Repeated because it's worth saying, often and loud.

 

Should the policy of forcing people to hire/accept based upon race be discontinued? Yup. We should be a colorblind society.

 

The government introduces "colour vision" because it benefits them; it helps it to grow and by introducing new programmes, it creates the illusion of government doing a good job, which in turn helps them to grow even more.

Most individuals are colourblind and the most colourblind institution in society is the market; all it sees is green and it does not give a damn about what gender or race their customer or employee is. Most of society also only care about a given individual's behaviour and actions. All children only care about who is the better play-mate. No sane person cares about race.

Racism has since long been shunned and looked down upon. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that it is normalised in contemporary West. Policies like AA only serve to destroy this order of colourblindness as it makes colour relevant, it creates conflicts between groups and one cannot help but to wonder if the real morive behind it isn't to create racism, hate and violence.

 

"divide et impera" Sociopaths have been using that mantra from time immemorial as a justification for their predations on other humans.

 

[
[/QUOTE]

sorry I keep forgetting that history obliterates the present and future for you. Thank goodness there’s no more racism and no more sexism

 

Not since the Obama presidency.
I mean he was a "wus".

 

You can’t be that much of a Trumper to not see how he brought out racism and sexism the way we’ve never seen it before. But the good thing is it got women to the polls!

 

sorry I keep forgetting that history obliterates the present and future for you. Thank goodness there’s no more racism and no more sexism[/QUOTE]

Isn't that exactly what you do??

Don't you justify empowering the government today to FORCE discrimination on society - based solely on history??

You seek to use the awful power of government against people who had nothing whatsoever to do with past discrimination.

How intellectually dishonest are you that you can't see that??