The Candidates on Racial Equality

[Accountable]

Bob Barr

“Equal opportunity is the essence of the American experience. That is one of many reasons racism and discrimination are so odious: they deny Americans the opportunities that naturally come with citizenship in this great nation. But programs which discriminate against non-minorities are no less unfair,” insists Barr. He points to Small Business Administration Section 8a preferences, Department of Transportation set-asides for minority- (and women-) owned firms, Federal Communications Commission licensing preferences for minorities, federal affirmative action programs and prosecutions that act as de facto quotas, and more.



“The collective impact of these measures is to create a racial spoils system, in which well-connected political operators, under both Republican and Democratic administrations are able to manipulate federal laws, regulations and policies on racial preferences in order gain advantage over competitors. These programs hinder rather than advance genuine racial equality and economic opportunity,” says Barr.



States have been taking the lead in passing constitutional amendments guaranteeing real equality under the law. “Two years ago, for example, Michigan voters approved the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative despite the opposition of virtually the entire political establishment,” notes Barr. “Similar measures are on the ballot this year in Arizona and Colorado, and one has been proposed in Nebraska. I commend activists like Ward Connerly and the citizens of these states for their willingness to fight for equality before the law. But while they can challenge state law, the many abusive federal programs remain unchanged.”



Unfortunately, “both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain represent the status quo in Washington. Sen. Obama has denounced the state votes as ‘designed to drive a wedge between people.’ This year, while running for president, Sen. McCain says he supports the Arizona vote. But ten years ago he opposed a similar effort, sounding like Sen. Obama in calling it ‘divisive’. In contrast, I am truly committed to creating a colorblind society,” says Barr.



“If elected, I will insist that all of my appointees treat everyone— job applicants, program beneficiaries, interested citizens—equally. The government must value diversity, while at the same time emphasizing merit and guaranteeing equality. Toward that end I will dismantle discriminatory programs created by prior presidents, and I will send legislation to Congress to eliminate the statutory basis for today’s racial spoils system,” he adds.

Barack Obama

Barack Obama's Plan [read details at the link]


Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement

Combat Employment Discrimination

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes

End Deceptive Voting Practices

End Racial Profiling

Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support

Eliminate Sentencing Disparities

Expand Use of Drug Courts

Barack Obama's Record

Record of Advocacy: Obama has worked to promote civil rights and fairness in the criminal justice system throughout his career. As a community organizer, Obama helped 150,000 African Americans register to vote. As a civil rights lawyer, Obama litigated employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and voting rights cases. As a State Senator, Obama passed one of the country's first racial profiling laws and helped reform a broken death penalty system. And in the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.

John McCain Link2

McCain is oddly silent on this issue I was able to find some quotes from him from On The Issues. That's in Link2



IMO the federal gov't has a duty to treat everyone equally and to make sure everyone else does as well. Programs such as affirmative action serve to continue our people's separation and hostility more than mend it.



For me: SCORE ONE FOR BARR

[K.Snyder]

For the first time in the history of the Unites States Presidential election we have an African-American, and a civil rights lawyer at that, running for President...

And people are wondering which Presidential candidate will impact equal rights for the betterment of society more substantially...:yh_think...Hmmmm...



:wah:...

I have to go with Obama on this one...

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Accountable;940075 wrote: Bob Barr

“Equal opportunity is the essence of the American experience. That is one of many reasons racism and discrimination are so odious: they deny Americans the opportunities that naturally come with citizenship in this great nation. But programs which discriminate against non-minorities are no less unfair,” insists Barr. He points to Small Business Administration Section 8a preferences, Department of Transportation set-asides for minority- (and women-) owned firms, Federal Communications Commission licensing preferences for minorities, federal affirmative action programs and prosecutions that act as de facto quotas, and more.



“The collective impact of these measures is to create a racial spoils system, in which well-connected political operators, under both Republican and Democratic administrations are able to manipulate federal laws, regulations and policies on racial preferences in order gain advantage over competitors. These programs hinder rather than advance genuine racial equality and economic opportunity,” says Barr.



States have been taking the lead in passing constitutional amendments guaranteeing real equality under the law. “Two years ago, for example, Michigan voters approved the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative despite the opposition of virtually the entire political establishment,” notes Barr. “Similar measures are on the ballot this year in Arizona and Colorado, and one has been proposed in Nebraska. I commend activists like Ward Connerly and the citizens of these states for their willingness to fight for equality before the law. But while they can challenge state law, the many abusive federal programs remain unchanged.”



Unfortunately, “both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain represent the status quo in Washington. Sen. Obama has denounced the state votes as ‘designed to drive a wedge between people.’ This year, while running for president, Sen. McCain says he supports the Arizona vote. But ten years ago he opposed a similar effort, sounding like Sen. Obama in calling it ‘divisive’. In contrast, I am truly committed to creating a colorblind society,” says Barr.



“If elected, I will insist that all of my appointees treat everyone— job applicants, program beneficiaries, interested citizens—equally. The government must value diversity, while at the same time emphasizing merit and guaranteeing equality. Toward that end I will dismantle discriminatory programs created by prior presidents, and I will send legislation to Congress to eliminate the statutory basis for today’s racial spoils system,” he adds.

Barack Obama

Barack Obama's Plan [read details at the link]


Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement

Combat Employment Discrimination

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes

End Deceptive Voting Practices

End Racial Profiling

Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support

Eliminate Sentencing Disparities

Expand Use of Drug Courts

Barack Obama's Record

Record of Advocacy: Obama has worked to promote civil rights and fairness in the criminal justice system throughout his career. As a community organizer, Obama helped 150,000 African Americans register to vote. As a civil rights lawyer, Obama litigated employment discrimination, housing discrimination, and voting rights cases. As a State Senator, Obama passed one of the country's first racial profiling laws and helped reform a broken death penalty system. And in the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leading advocate for protecting the right to vote, helping to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and leading the opposition against discriminatory barriers to voting.

John McCain Link2

McCain is oddly silent on this issue I was able to find some quotes from him from On The Issues. That's in Link2



IMO the federal gov't has a duty to treat everyone equally and to make sure everyone else does as well. Programs such as affirmative action serve to continue our people's separation and hostility more than mend it.



For me: SCORE ONE FOR BARR


While a noble quest worth seeking, it will never happen. There has discrimination and prejudice and hate since the dawn of time and it will always be so. The simple truth is that human beings, like most animals, want to be closets to their own kind and unfortuantely also see those not of that kind in a different light. That goes for any racial or ethnic group in the world. Black against white, white against black, and so on.

The key is reasonable accomodation recognizing that there should be no barriers to individual accomplishment, but also recognizing that laws will never change human perception or preference.

[K.Snyder]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;940132 wrote: While a noble quest worth seeking, it will never happen. There has discrimination and prejudice and hate since the dawn of time and it will always be so. The simple truth is that human beings, like most animals, want to be closets to their own kind and unfortuantely also see those not of that kind in a different light. That goes for any racial or ethnic group in the world. Black against white, white against black, and so on.

The key is reasonable accomodation recognizing that there should be no barriers to individual accomplishment, but also recognizing that laws will never change human perception or preference.


Yes but what we're after is the effects of racism not the cause...

The government should at all times subdue and even punish those who partake in racism as well as physical racist attacks...

Which of the three candidates do you believe will prolong/progress civil integrity?...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;940084 wrote: For the first time in the history of the Unites States Presidential election we have an African-American, and a civil rights lawyer at that, running for President...



And people are wondering which Presidential candidate will impact equal rights for the betterment of society more substantially...:yh_think...Hmmmm...





:wah:...



I have to go with Obama on this one...I don't see driving a wedge between ethnicities as betterment of society at all. If an employer is required - either actually or psychologically - by law to favor a particular category, especially by something so easily identifiable as color-coding, then it casts doubt on all who fit that category. Did that new manager get the job because she was the most qualified, or because she's blessed with melanin?



QUINNSCOMMENTARY;940132 wrote: While a noble quest worth seeking, it will never happen. There has discrimination and prejudice and hate since the dawn of time and it will always be so. The simple truth is that human beings, like most animals, want to be closets to their own kind and unfortuantely also see those not of that kind in a different light. That goes for any racial or ethnic group in the world. Black against white, white against black, and so on.



The key is reasonable accomodation recognizing that there should be no barriers to individual accomplishment, but also recognizing that laws will never change human perception or preference.
Laws absolutely change human perception, only not positively. Laws that require playing favorites promote jealousy and bigotry.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;940137 wrote: Yes but what we're after is the effects of racism not the cause...



The government should at all times subsidize and even punish those who partake in racism as well as physical racist attacks...



Which of the three candidates do you believe will prolong/progress civil integrity?...
I know you didn't mean gov't should subsidize those who partake in racism. Who exactly should government "at all times subsidize"?

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Laws absolutely change human perception, only not positively. Laws that require playing favorites promote jealousy and bigotry.


Give me an example of how any law changes human perception (as opposed to compliance). If laws changed human beings then with the hundreds of laws already on the books regarding all forms of discrimination no more would be necessary and the human perception thus changed would preclude the necessity of any new laws.

What law requires playing favorites?

Laws promote complaince they do not change human beings.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940146 wrote: I don't see driving a wedge between ethnicities as betterment of society at all. If an employer is required - either actually or psychologically - by law to favor a particular category, especially by something so easily identifiable as color-coding, then it casts doubt on all who fit that category. Did that new manager get the job because she was the most qualified, or because she's blessed with melanin?




I see...

You'd like to see his(Obamas') credentials...

You feel his being one of those peoples to whom was of the significant majority of the minority gives him no credibility as far as civil rights are concerned...

Sure that's reasonable...

I was speaking tongue in cheek but on a serious note I find it equally reasonable to assume that he'd know what was best for people to whom suffer from racism and inequality because he is one of those peoples to whom are effected by racism and inequality...He can relate to those people who do not have equal opportunity and those to whom are subject to racial discrimination...(And before it's brought up that this is contradicting evident by his running for the President of the United States of America is canceled out on grounds of pure luck -- I challenge any disagreement with this)...

"You can get a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking your head up a Bulls *** but I'd rather take the butchers' word for it" -- Tommy Boy...

Obviously the only downside to this is Obama setting precedents that create ample opportunities for the "minority" in question ultimately leading to inequality to the "majority"...

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940150 wrote: I know you didn't mean gov't should subsidize those who partake in racism. Who exactly should government "at all times subsidize"?


:wah:...

sorry...

I meant "subdue"...

I'll go back and change that...

[Accountable]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY wrote: Give me an example of how any law changes human perception (as opposed to compliance).I thought I did. Affirmative action changes some employees' view toward a newly-promoted manager. In the military, it was fairly consistent for me to hear at least one person passed over for promotion to comment that minorities get a leg up. One even researched the demographics of Air Force promotees, noting that it almost perfectly mirrored the Air Force population. The comments reach people to whom it would otherwise never occur to question the promotee's qualification. Thus, the law has changed some people's perceptions.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY wrote: If laws changed human beings then with the hundreds of laws already on the books regarding all forms of discrimination no more would be necessary and the human perception thus changed would preclude the necessity of any new laws. I stated plainly that the change would not be positive. Laws limit. They do not release.



QUINNSCOMMENTARY wrote: What law requires playing favorites?



Laws promote complaince they do not change human beings.Affirmative action requires playing favorites in that employers have to give special consideration to melanin content when deciding who deserves a given promotion.

[K.Snyder]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;940200 wrote:

Give me an example of how any law changes human perception (as opposed to compliance). If laws changed human beings then with the hundreds of laws already on the books regarding all forms of discrimination no more would be necessary and the human perception thus changed would preclude the necessity of any new laws.

What law requires playing favorites?

Laws promote complaince they do not change human beings.


Laws can also be ineffective by structure...

It's what we have amendments for...

[Clint]

In another thread the discussion leads one to think left-handed people should have minority status. There are far fewer introverts than extroverts so I say I should have minority status. At some point we have to say everyone is equal and leave it at that.

[K.Snyder]

Clint;940263 wrote: In another thread the discussion leads one to think left-handed people should have minority status. There are far fewer introverts than extroverts so I say I should have minority status. At some point we have to say everyone is equal and leave it at that.


The fualt doesn't lie in labeling rather what's perceived because of it...

[Clint]

K.Snyder;940280 wrote: The fualt doesn't lie in labeling rather what's perceived because of it...


The labeling draws attention to our differences. We are doing way too much of that.

Almost all of us are unique in some way and could claim some special need. Will the day come when we point to a group that hasn't claimed minority status and realize they are indeed the minority?

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;940084 wrote: And people are wondering which Presidential candidate will impact equal rights for the betterment of society more substantially...:yh_think...Hmmmm...


Accountable;940146 wrote: I don't see driving a wedge between ethnicities as betterment of society at all. If an employer is required - either actually or psychologically - by law to favor a particular category, especially by something so easily identifiable as color-coding, then it casts doubt on all who fit that category. Did that new manager get the job because she was the most qualified, or because she's blessed with melanin?


K.Snyder;940224 wrote: I see...



You'd like to see his(Obamas') credentials...:-2 I don't see how you interpret my post as questioning Obama's credentials.

K.Snyder wrote: You feel his being one of those peoples to whom was of the significant majority of the minority gives him no credibility as far as civil rights are concerned...It's not a question of credibility but rather of what should be done about it.

K.Snyder wrote: I was speaking tongue in cheek but on a serious note I find it equally reasonable to assume that he'd know what was best for people to whom suffer from racism and inequality because he is one of those peoples to whom are effected by racism and inequality...He can relate to those people who do not have equal opportunity and those to whom are subject to racial discrimination...(And before it's brought up that this is contradicting evident by his running for the President of the United States of America is canceled out on grounds of pure luck -- I challenge any disagreement with this)...He apparently wasn't too effected by racism and inequality. In fact, his skin color seems to be the only thing he had in common until adulthood when he purposely sought out those that more closely fit the stereotype of black radical.K.Snyder wrote: Obviously the only downside to this is Obama setting precedents that create ample opportunities for the minority in question ultimately leading to inequality to the majority...You don't seem to see this as important.

[K.Snyder]

Clint;940289 wrote: The labeling draws attention to our differences. We are doing way too much of that.

Almost all of us are unique in some way and could claim some special need. Will the day come when we point to a group that hasn't claimed minority status and realize they are indeed the minority?


They've perceived themselves to be in the minority if those to whom they're accusing of discriminating them hadn't perceived that in which they've been labeled inferior...

Absolutely nothing wrong with labeling...One wouldn't know the color of white if there were no black, but the fact still remains that they coexist...

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940296 wrote: :-2 I don't see how you interpret my post as questioning Obama's credentials.

It's not a question of credibility but rather of what should be done about it.


"Did that new manager get the job because she was the most qualified, or because she's blessed with melanin?" Implies quite clearly that you're stressing the importance of his credentials in relation to his stature...

Accountable;940296 wrote:

He apparently wasn't too effected by racism and inequality. In fact, his skin color seems to be the only thing he had in common until adulthood when he purposely sought out those that more closely fit the stereotype of black radical.


Purely luck...The fact still remains that there are people in this country who are discriminated against...Obamas success does not suggest the effects of racism are non existent rather he were lucky enough to not be effected by racism...

Accountable;940296 wrote: You don't seem to see this as important. Oh it's important rather I give him(Obama) the benefit of the doubt in not being biased toward equality...In other instances he's labeled himself a racist...

[Accountable]

After returning from overseas, Obama supported reparations to African Americans, then sidestepped when asked directly.

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story05.html

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;940313 wrote: Purely luck...The fact still remains that there are people in this country who are discriminated against...Obamas success does not suggest the effects of racism are non existent rather he were lucky enough to not be effected by racism...Calling Obama purely lucky sells him short. The man has intelligence, savvy, and drive. He recognizes a good opportunity and uses his talents to capitalize on it. Capitalize BIG!



What you've posted is an insult to the very group you're trying to defend.

[Clint]

Why does Obama point out his blackness and seem to shun his whiteness? Why is he the the black candidate rather than the black and white candidate?

McCain has a long history of being color blind. If you can be kind to the nation of people of anoter color who tortured you in prison you have risen above racism.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940330 wrote: After returning from overseas, Obama supported reparations to African Americans, then sidestepped when asked directly.

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story05.html




"Deeds" in this context could mean a number of things...

He stated in the video that he'd look to discuss the nature in the potential of the endorsement of a public apology...I'd have to agree...I don't see an ounce of biased intention in his conjecture to this issue...

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940333 wrote: Calling Obama purely lucky sells him short. The man has intelligence, savvy, and drive. He recognizes a good opportunity and uses his talents to capitalize on it. Capitalize BIG!



What you've posted is an insult to the very group you're trying to defend.


Absolutely not...

That's laughable...:wah:...

Purely neutral with extreme emphasis on observation...At no point I considered Barack Obama unintelligent, non empathetic, or deprived of ambition...

What you're doing is underestimating the prevalence of racial inequality in America...By your saying "He recognizes a good opportunity and uses his talents to capitalize on it. Capitalize BIG! " is him capitalizing on, among other things, but equally as important if not more, is his luck in not being subject to the effects of racism...

My reference to Barack Obama being lucky was saying he was lucky for not having been effected of racism evident in his success to become a Presidential nominee not limited to his own control...

I have slavery and pathetic civil rights in American history to back that up...

No one would think for a minute that every African-American in America had a legitimate chance of being a Presidential candidate...They weren't as lucky as Barack Obama to not be oppressed by racisms' effects...

[K.Snyder]

Clint;940339 wrote: Why does Obama point out his blackness and seem to shun his whiteness? Why is he the the black candidate rather than the black and white candidate?


Because the white man in this country has never been oppressed(Excluding individual cases)...

You're taking lack of emphasis and writing it off as being shunned...There's no reason for him to emphasize his white heritage...

[Clint]

K.Snyder;940361 wrote: Because the white man in this country has never been oppressed(Excluding individual cases)...

You're taking lack of emphasis and writing it off as being shunned...There's no reason for him to emphasize his white heritage...


Don't you mean there is no good political reason to emphasize his white heritage? Should one only emphasize the oppression in their heritage? Wouldn't that just take us down a path of further decline.

[Accountable]

Clint;940339 wrote: Why does Obama point out his blackness and seem to shun his whiteness? Why is he the the black candidate rather than the black and white candidate? Because he's more nuanced than simple black & white, and McCain already is the gray candidate. :sneaky:

[K.Snyder]

Clint;940369 wrote: Don't you mean there is no good political reason to emphasize his white heritage? Should one only emphasize the oppression in their heritage? Wouldn't that just take us down a path of further decline.


Only if those within office give more opurtunities to those to whom have been oppressed by virtue of reparative inequality...

What's left is simply voicing that inequality is prevalent as well as an issue that needs to be addressed...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;940354 wrote: Absolutely not...



That's laughable...:wah:...



Purely neutral with extreme emphasis on observation...At no point I considered Barack Obama unintelligent, non empathetic, or deprived of ambition...



What you're doing is underestimating the prevalence of racial inequality in America...By your saying "He recognizes a good opportunity and uses his talents to capitalize on it. Capitalize BIG! " is him capitalizing on, among other things, but equally as important if not more, is his luck in not being subject to the effects of racism...



My reference to Barack Obama being lucky was saying he was lucky for not having been effected of racism evident in his success to become a Presidential nominee not limited to his own control...



I have slavery and pathetic civil rights in American history to back that up...



No one would think for a minute that every African-American in America had a legitimate chance of being a Presidential candidate...They weren't as lucky as Barack Obama to not be oppressed by racisms' effects...
Your post is ridiculous in the extreme. I don't know how to address it.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940372 wrote: Because he's more nuanced than simple black & white, and McCain already is the gray candidate. :sneaky:


You feel Obama is biased towards his African-American heritage?...

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940374 wrote: Your post is ridiculous in the extreme. I don't know how to address it.


How is it ridiculous?...

[Clint]

:yh_rotflAccountable;940372 wrote: Because he's more nuanced than simple black & white, and McCain already is the gray candidate. :sneaky:


I just spewed coffee all over my monitor...thanks. :yh_rotfl

[K.Snyder]

K.Snyder;940354 wrote: By your saying "He recognizes a good opportunity and uses his talents to capitalize on it. Capitalize BIG! " is him capitalizing on, among other things, but equally as important if not more, is his luck in not being subject to the effects of racism...

My reference to Barack Obama being lucky was saying he was lucky for not having been effected of racism evident in his success to become a Presidential nominee not limited to his own control...




I should rephrase what I've said...

Barack Obama was lucky to not be subject to the effect of racism to an extent enabling him to become a Presidential candidate...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;940375 wrote: You feel Obama is biased towards his African-American heritage?...
It was my turn for tongue-in-cheek . Obama has no "African-American heritage" as we commonly define it because he isn't a descendant of slaves, but yes. He's a world-class politician who is not above using any weapon in is arsenal. If that means using his extra melanin to score points with the color-coding crowd then so be it.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;940380 wrote: I should rephrase what I've said...



Barack Obama was lucky to not be subject to the effect of racism to an extent enabling him to become a Presidential candidate...
So you don't think he overcame anything, he was just lucky? You think that if racism had found him he wouldn't stand a chance?? Come on!

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940381 wrote: It was my turn for tongue-in-cheek . Obama has no "African-American heritage" as we commonly define it because he isn't a descendant of slaves, but yes. He's a world-class politician who is not above using any weapon in is arsenal. If that means using his extra melanin to score points with the color-coding crowd then so be it.


Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro (November 29, 1942 – November 7, 1995), known as Ann Dunham, and later as Ann Sutoro[1] was the mother of United States Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama.[2] Dunham was an anthropologist who later specialized in rural development. Born in Kansas, Dunham attended high school near Seattle, Washington and spent most of her adult life in Hawaii.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

Mothers get to be called American don't they?...

Seeing as how Barack Obamas' father was African makes Barack Obama a descendant of African-American heritage...

[Clint]

K.Snyder;940373 wrote: Only if those within office give more opurtunities to those to whom have been oppressed by virtue of reparative inequality...

What's left is simply voicing that inequality is prevalent as well as an issue that needs to be addressed...


My grandparents moved west leaving family and friends behind becasue of racial oppression. My great-great-grandfather was one of the original Siamese Twins and their decendants were the brunt of jokes, name calling and exclusion. I have many aunts, uncles and cousins I've never met and many parts of my life are missing because of it. I demand nothing, I request nothing and I expect nothing. That is the life I was given, it's up to me to make the best of it, and even if I say so myself...I have.

The issue has been addressed to death. No one who has been to the breakfast table in the past 50 years has missed the voicing of the existance of inequality in this country. What do you suggest...public floggings for those who you think don't get it?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940382 wrote: So you don't think he overcame anything, he was just lucky? You think that if racism had found him he wouldn't stand a chance?? Come on!


Yes...

But not just any racism...Racism enough to oppress him...Barack Obama was born in 1961...Racism I have to admit was more prevalent then than it is now which gives even more credence to his success...

I wouldn't suggest that racisms' effects are/was less indiginous than other places...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;940389 wrote: Yes...



But not just any racism...Racism enough to oppress him...Barack Obama was born in 1961...Racism I have to admit was more prevalent then than it is now which gives even more credence to his success...



I wouldn't suggest that racisms' effects are/was less indiginous than other places...
Great! Which brings us back full circle to the subject. We don't need Affirmative Action anymore, if we ever did, which we didn't.

[K.Snyder]

Clint;940385 wrote: My grandparents moved west leaving family and friends behind becasue of racial oppression. My great-great-grandfather was one of the original Siamese Twins and their decendants were the brunt of jokes, name calling and exclusion. I have many aunts, uncles and cousins I've never met and many parts of my life are missing because of it.


I'm sorry your family were subject to the ill effects of racism...

Clint;940385 wrote:

I demand nothing, I request nothing and I expect nothing. That is the life I was given, it's up to me to make the best of it, and even if I so say so myself...I have. By your having something means the ill effects of racism you've been subject to were not as prevalent as those to whom haven't been as lucky...

We can make things easy and define the epitome of the heaviest effects of racism...That being slavery...The lowest effects of ill intended racism would be equal opportunity without prejudice...

I take it you hadn't been enslaved...

Clint;940385 wrote:

The issue has been addressed to death. No one who has been to the breakfast table in the past 50 years has missed the voicing of the existance of inequality in this country. What do you suggest...public floggings for those who you think don't get it? I suggest inequality needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed without bias and accordingly...As for great details I'm afraid that's another topic...We're veering from the thread topic to personal propositions...

What we're after is which candidate can make the ideal prelude to the sufficient handling of inequality faced with America without bias...

It's come up that Obama is biased towards the minority in question with implications of him possibly creating ample opportunities to those very same peoples...

What are your thoughts?...

[Clint]

K.Snyder;940397 wrote: I'm sorry your family were subject to the ill effects of racism...

By your having something means the ill effects of racism you've been subject to were not as prevalent as those to whom haven't been as lucky...

We can make things easy and define the epitome of the heaviest effects of racism...That being slavery...The lowest effects of ill intended racism would be equal opportunity without prejudice...

I take it you hadn't been enslaved...

I suggest inequality needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed without bias and accordingly...As for great details I'm afraid that's another topic...We're veering from the thread topic to personal propositions...

What we're after is which candidate can make the ideal prelude to the sufficient handling of inequality faced with America without bias...

It's come up that Obama is biased towards the minority in question with implications of him possibly creating opportunity to those very same peoples...

What are your thoughts?...


Clever

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940393 wrote: Great! Which brings us back full circle to the subject. We don't need Affirmative Action anymore, if we ever did, which we didn't.


Well I think individual issues need to be addressed as such...

Affirmative action is by no means the only issue related to ideal equality...

I can't exactly say we don't need it wholeheartedly but I will admit that it's strenuously overused...At least as far as my own personal observations are concerned...

Do you feel Affirmative action is based at the expense of non minorities in general?...

I can't say I agree with that...I have a huge problem with the term "middle and upper class minorities"...What the * does that mean!!??...How the hell can a minority be considered in the "middle class" let alone "upper class"?...Someone isn't doing their homework...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;940404 wrote: Do you feel Affirmative action is based at the expense of non minorities in general?...I don't know what you mean.



K.Snyder wrote: I can't say I agree with that...I have a huge problem with the term "middle and upper class minorities"...What the * does that mean!!??...How the hell can a minority be considered in the "middle class" let alone "upper class"?...Someone isn't doing their homework...The term "minority" does harm. Splitting up America into neat little color-coded cubby holes does harm. No entire color-coded group can be lumped into any one arbitrary financial class. Grouping people by net-worth or geographic area would be far more meaningful than melanin content.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;940407 wrote: I don't know what you mean.


You feel that Affirmative action creates opportunities at the expense of people of the upper class making those very same people subject to ill living conditions?...

Accountable;940407 wrote:

The term "minority" does harm. Splitting up America into neat little color-coded cubby holes does harm. No entire color-coded group can be lumped into any one arbitrary financial class. Grouping people by net-worth or geographic area would be far more meaningful than melanin content.


Absolutely...But racisms' ill effects are the primary result of a very large proportion of those very same minorities...Speaking mostly in consideration to African-Americans and Native Americans...

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Accountable;940241 wrote: I thought I did. Affirmative action changes some employees' view toward a newly-promoted manager. In the military, it was fairly consistent for me to hear at least one person passed over for promotion to comment that minorities get a leg up. One even researched the demographics of Air Force promotees, noting that it almost perfectly mirrored the Air Force population. The comments reach people to whom it would otherwise never occur to question the promotee's qualification. Thus, the law has changed some people's perceptions.

I stated plainly that the change would not be positive. Laws limit. They do not release.



Affirmative action requires playing favorites in that employers have to give special consideration to melanin content when deciding who deserves a given promotion.


Sorry, I don't get it. An affirmative action law may cause the person who did not get a job or promtion to blame it on the law (and perhaps the person who did get the positive result), but it did not change their perception of the person. If they were prejudice before they would be after the fact and visa versa.

We are talking human interactions, experiences, prejudices, psychology and the like and laws don't change those things. In fact, in the minds of some people the laws reinforce their views.

[Clint]

K.Snyder;940397 wrote:

I take it you hadn't been enslaved...

I suggest inequality needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed without bias and accordingly...As for great details I'm afraid that's another topic...We're veering from the thread topic to personal propositions...

What we're after is which candidate can make the ideal prelude to the sufficient handling of inequality faced with America without bias...

It's come up that Obama is biased towards the minority in question with implications of him possibly creating ample opportunities to those very same peoples...What are your thoughts?...


I think anyone alive today who has been enslaved should be made whole by the one doing the enslaving. It is illegal. If we are talking about the candidates please include them in your comments. I was simply giving an example in response to your comments about racial oppression and stating it is an old issue we need to drop if we are going be successful individually and as a nation.

Obama's rise to stardom has been as a result of his activities in one community. I think he should be able to point to his efforts for all communities before he proposes to be the one who represents all communities. I see nothing in his past endeavors that demonstrates to me he will be any more than a community organizer for one community.

[Accountable]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;940420 wrote: Sorry, I don't get it. An affirmative action law may cause the person who did not get a job or promtion to blame it on the law (and perhaps the person who did get the positive result), but it did not change their perception of the person. If they were prejudice before they would be after the fact and visa versa.



We are talking human interactions, experiences, prejudices, psychology and the like and laws don't change those things. In fact, in the minds of some people the laws reinforce their views.
If laws can reinforce views, laws can change views. I'm not saying it's at all common, but I've seen it. Young airmen hear a conversation as I described might look at any non-white supervisor or officer and wonder. You might say the conversation had the effect, but the conversation would not have happened without the law.



Any law that targets an arbitrary category and separates people based on that category is wrong. It was wrong when it was privilege granted to nobility based on birth, and it's wrong when it grants special consideration based on melanin, gender, or who makes one horny..

[K.Snyder]

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;940420 wrote: Sorry, I don't get it. An affirmative action law may cause the person who did not get a job or promtion to blame it on the law (and perhaps the person who did get the positive result), but it did not change their perception of the person. If they were prejudice before they would be after the fact and visa versa.

We are talking human interactions, experiences, prejudices, psychology and the like and laws don't change those things. In fact, in the minds of some people the laws reinforce their views.


Those to whom allow Affirmative action to dictate their views on racism were racists to begin with...The law is merely acting as the scapegoat in this instance...

What it does is force the person to whom felt they've been wronged by Affirmative action to empathize which would lead to resentment towards the peoples to whom passed the law to begin with...

In simpler terms John Doe needs to apply himself more...

For the record,..I feel Affirmative action condones incompetence by virtue of standardization subtract of ideology...

[K.Snyder]

Clint;940467 wrote: I think anyone alive today who has been enslaved should be made whole by the one doing the enslaving. It is illegal. If we are talking about the candidates please include them in your comments.K.Snyder wrote:

It's come up that Obama is biased towards the minority in question with implications of him possibly creating opportunity to those very same peoples... I was talking about Obama being accused of being biased towards a certain group...

Clint;940467 wrote:

I was simply giving an example in response to your comments about racial oppression and stating it is an old issue we need to drop if we are going be successful individually and as a nation. I was just making a statement based off of your example as well...

Clint;940467 wrote:

Obama's rise to stardom has been as a result of his activities in one community. I think he should be able to point to his efforts for all communities before he proposes to be the one who represents all communities. I see nothing in his past endeavors that demonstrates to me he will be any more than a community organizer for one community.


Which candidate do you feel represents all communities?...

The credentials of each candidate to date doesn't lie...

[Clint]

K.Snyder;940483 wrote: I was talking about Obama being accused of being biased towards a certain group...

I was just making a statement based off of your example as well...



Which candidate do you feel represents all communities?...

The credentials of each candidate to date doesn't lie...


Of the two most notable candidates John McCain has a history of representation. He has supported the rights of every American throughout his years of service. In the U.S. Navy he served side by side with people of every color. He has demonstrated over and over that he is a public servant, serving ALL Americans.

The more I see of him the more I like him.

[Accountable]

Clint;940487 wrote: Of the two most notable candidates John McCain has a history of representation. He has supported the rights of every American throughout his years of service. In the U.S. Navy he served side by side with people of every color. He has demonstrated over and over that he is a public servant, serving ALL Americans.



The more I see of him the more I like him.
I like him too, but not for President.

[Clint]

Accountable;940503 wrote: I like him too, but not for President.


I like your candidate but, like most Americans, I can never remember his name. So I've decided that even though McCain is part of the same old machine I would rather have him at the helm than someone who's only sailed in a lake.