[quote="Blade";p="409392"]Yes they used to do that. Now they're doing the same with whites. Both times were irrational and unjust.

How are they doing that when colleges are 80% white, oh thats right you want them to be 100% white and then the system is fair.

No, I wouldn't.

Sure you would it would be the way you want it.

No, I went to a 95% black high school, pretty segregated, and I didn't like it.

LMAO there is no way in hell you went to a 95% black high school, if anything it was 95% white.

Guess again - I have.

When you go to apply for a job or admission into a school or are pulled over by the police you don't have to worry about the factor of race playing a role in it, see as black people we don't have that luxury.



Well actually they do, but we know it will never come so I will just take the equal protection under the law.

As far as, your anti-white claims give it a break. We both know that is just propaganda to try and hide your own racism.

Peace.

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

Is it possible for you to conjure up even a single post of substance???

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade";p=&quot Is it possible for you to conjure up even a single post of substance???

I take that as a compliment coming from one as bright as you.

Peace.

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

Here's your one post:

"You be a racist. You and Valor done be a racist. Why don't you say you be a racist."

An endless rant. Instead, let's hear your opinion on, oh, I don't know - french impressionism?

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

You are hearing my opinion on the neigborhood racists.

Peace.

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

Yeah - over and over and over - you've got one post, and that's all you can post.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

I'm from MI, currently attending MSU. U of M never had an "anti-white" acceptance system, they had a point system based on a combination of such factors as economic background and ethnicity. Lets not forget that women regardless of race were also included as minorities in AA, as were many other marginal groups, not just blacks. Either way only the best of the best are accepted to U of M, they are "the Harvard of the north" (although I think university of chicago deserves that title more.

__________________
"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Nietzsche

Complete, thorough-going nonsense. U of M's systematic discrimination in favor of minorities, which is inseperable logically from discrimination against whites, was brought out into the open in Gratz and Grutter, and not even contested by U of M, which successfully (and incredibly) offered the preposterous "diversity" argument. The "diversity" rationale for anti-white discrimination was quickly picked up not only by other universities, but also private companies all over the country to justify anti-white discrimination.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

What do you mean [i]in[/in] Gratz and Grutter? Of course lawyers who are fighting a case are going to use every trick in the book, and just because a case is proven doesn't mean it is true (the trials of emit till and oj simpson come to mind off the top of my head). But it is was I say it was; there was a point system by which students were rated. Being a minority or being from an underprivileged background meant that the applicant was given 20 extra points but they couldn't score the same thing twice. So for example, a poor black person would get 20 points added to their score not 40, which is pointless unless they are a very good student because they needed around 100 or more to be accepted.

__________________
"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule." - Nietzsche

The "diversity" argument wasn't a "trick in the book" - it was the standard rationale of U of M for anti-white discrimination before the lawsuits were brought.

The point system you referred to was the Gratz v. Bollinger case where undegraduate minorities got points just for being minorities. So a privileged black student from the middle class would get points for being black, and a white student from a poor background who was the first person ever to go to college in their family (like ME) could only get in on their test scores and grades. The policy was totally irrational, totally racist.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, the case for the U of M Law school, the university admitted in court that it intended that 10-12% of the students of each entering class should be Black, Chicano, Native American, and mainland Puerto Rican. It was shown in court that if a white student and black student had exactly the same test scores and grades, the white student was about 100 times less likely to be admitted than the black student.

The court overuled the undergraduate point system as being "too mechanistic", and of course the undergraduate school with lightning speed simply replaced it with the subjective fuzzy system as the law school, with of course every intention of achieving the same results as before.

You are wrong about the "or underprivileged" background getting "points" - undergraduate "points" were only given to minorities.

In an incredibly bad opinion that was even criticized from the bench by liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Sandra Day O'Connor stunned the legal community, which assumed this case would be the the last nail in the coffin for "affirmative action". Instead, O'connor, as she was leaving the USSC, gave young white people a parting gift of reviving the half-dead "affirmative action" frankenstein, and once again ruining the lives of people like Barbara Grutter for the crime of having the wrong skin color - white.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847