To Those Who Oppose Affirmative Action! (READ THIS!)

quote:

How is the selection of POLITICAL APPOINTEES akin to "Affirmative Action" for White folks?

One name: JAYSON BLAIR...

Any more questions?

quote:

Does this say that the staff of the City of New Orleans and of the State of Mississippi who were ALSO political appointees and who also failed to perform in an effective manner during this tragedy are showing the hand of "Affirmative Action"?

Was there a statement about those staffs? Do you know where those staff members were qualified for their positions or not and whether or not they were ineffective in their assigned roles?

To talk about the mayor is one thing. But the whole staff is another. Please publish the qualifications for every position you're alluding to or....

quote:

Does it sink in that in your acceptance of this article which attacks "Affirmative Action for White folks" and the INCOMPETENCE that has resulted THAT YOU accept the notion that AA is correlated with INCOMPETENCE?

Sure, CF... that's exactly what highlighting HYPOCRISY, rank HYPOCRISY is. Accepting the notions that are PROJECTED. Sarcasm and Irony Be Damned!

quote:

For those of us who "didn't bite" he appears to be making the point that "White folks allow incompetents into important positions with their use of Affirmative Action, they should allow Black folks in as well".

Again... Sarcasm and Irony Be Damned!

And I guess this gave you cause (instead of pause) to make that statement:
Bush's idea of diversity in this affirmative action for no-combat military experts was his African-American former national security adviser, Condoleezza ''Those 16-Words-Are-A-Data-Point" Rice. Rice, now secretary of state, was in the lead of defusing criticism over Bush's discredited claim that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons material from Africa.

As always there is no basis for your ridiculous assertion. But if I'm wrong, list the Derrick Z's "Allow Black Folks In Too..." clause <<< H E R E >>>

quote:

What happens if someone purchases your "wolf ticket" and attempts to crack down on this type of "AA" just as colleges clamped down on Legacy Admissions?

Dude, will you just admit you're a POSER and be done with it?

Beyond that and on the point, ummmm.... the very reason why any Legacies have been "clamped down on" has been because of the repeated "crack downs" on AA. The UofM case brought this one, this thing on the LEGACIES to a head. You got to catch up on the news, stay with that class and stop talking out your ass if you're going to try to raise respectable questions around here, CF.

I guess you've had nothing to say about LEGACIES because your concern or rather your obsession is Black people, castigating them some might say. Anyway, you really would have to provide some real info. on how and how many colleges have "clamped" down on these LEGACIES.... hmmm.... And what was the impetus for that my dear RHETORICAL friend?


"Wolf Tickets"....
I just bought all yours. Bluff called... Now what??

Nmaginate:

Please review your previous post and highlight the ACTUAL POINTS that you have made in support of your position (rather than simply throwing up flack)?

Again - Throughout our government, A POLITICAL INSTITUTION are POLITICAL APPOINTEES. Despite his light qualifications Brown's nomination was approved by the Senate.

Let us review Derrick Z Jackson's asseration against "White Affirmative Action". He attempts to prove that their brand of AA has allowed "unqualified people" into important positions. He is thus making a claim that has long been made against AA for Minorities. In my letter that I wrote to him I asked him how does his assertions JUSTIFY AA for minorities when all he has done is to say "White folks allow incompetence as well"?

I atleast got a response from Tonya Weathersbee, a fellow member of the NBPA who clearly has talked with Jackson and others and came up with this TALKING POINT about White AA because both of their articles are make use of the same flawed premise.

Again - Throughout our government, A POLITICAL INSTITUTION are POLITICAL APPOINTEES. Despite his light qualifications Brown's nomination was approved by the Senate.

And political appointeeship doesn't make it any less of an "AA" program. In fact, that was part of what actual AA was enacted for: To Break Up The Old Boy Network or all kinds of Nepotism. That the Senate approved doesn't strengthen your defense and deference.

He attempts to prove that their brand of AA has allowed "unqualified people" into important positions.

This is an objective point. Either they were or were not. Don't put quotes on something unless you have information IN SUPPORT of your position. So do you know that they were "qualified"? The author points out they had no experience in their respective field. And one would think experience or relevant management skills would be a prerequisite, Political Appointee or not.

QUESTION: Have Surgeon Generals ever been people with no medical background? (Wolf PUNCH!!)

He is thus making a claim that has long been made against AA for Minorities.

Umm... Yeah, IRONY huh? SARCASM, huh?
Those things are not lost on you!! Wow!!

In my letter that I wrote to him I asked him how does his assertions JUSTIFY AA for minorities when all he has done is to say "White folks allow incompetence as well"?

Dude, this is your ASSERTION, unjustified as it is (as most all of your statements are), that says Blacks, e.g., allow "incompetence" as if it is a wholesale reality. And, seriously, "White folk" have allowed mediocrity and incompetence for centuries. This should be no revelation to anyone with a pulse.

Now, CF... SHUT YOUR TRAP when it comes to asking questions and making additional statements... It's time for you to answer some damn questions around here. As always, I leave you a few... But before that, my position is that you are FULL OF SHIT. So I've said quite a bit to prove that. And I demonstrated, by factual information presented to support... that Whites Swim In Racial Preference a la the U-of-M stat I posted where nary a mumblin' word is said by your type.

But to the point of you doing your job here and answering questions posed to you, you can start off by rectifying that BULLSHIT about LEGACIES. Texas A&M and whatever other colleges (most, no doubt) were under relatively little pressure to end LEGACIES until that U-of-M case started the microscope examination of college point systems and admit rates for various admission categories.

So, as always, you presented a blatant LIE about how LEGACIES started getting "clamped" down on.

quote:

Legacy admissions -- giving an edge to children of alumni -- have always been a contentious issue...

In recent years, the conversation has become even noisier, leading a few institutions to pull the plug on legacies and others to go to great lengths to tell graduates the rules have changed...

The issue heated up when race-based admission policies came under fire, which also made it difficult for schools to maintain admission preferences based on pedigree.

"There's no question that the whole debate surrounding affirmative action opened the entire admissions process to public scrutiny -- not just about minorities, but athletes, cello players, donors," said Barmak Nassirian of the American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers. "And there's no question that there's something about legacies that rubs people the wrong way."

Some critics of the policy have also been beneficiaries. President Bush...

This article published in JUNE 2005 said A FEW schools have scrapped LEGACIES... you said MANY. SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION with some solid information.

You posed an idiotic and asinine RHETORICAL Question (Go Figure!)... YOU HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED, proven to be a LIAR. That is, unless you have solid information that supports what you asserted.

NO!! Don't talk about "my position"... Don't talk about Derrick Z or Tonya... Talk about and support your position or STFU!

Like I ask "them White Boys".... WHY DO YOU HAVE TO LIE? I thought CONservatives were about morals. Last I checked LYING was something prohibited in the 10 Commandments. What's up with that CF?

Oh and since you are really myopic in your views, let me list this part of that article too... so you can, for once, get your shit straight:

quote:

The University of Georgia decided to scrap legacy admissions in 2003 after it lost a federal lawsuit challenging its use of affirmative action in undergraduate admissions.

CF... The word is: *AFTER*

So this flak-as-a-question/challenge of yours was based on what TRUTH? ANY??
What happens if someone purchases your "wolf ticket" and attempts to crack down on this type of "AA" just as colleges clamped down on Legacy Admissions?

Obviously the problem with your question, your rhetorical question is that it was always FRAUDULENT to begin with. And the TRUTH of the matter is that you have CORRELATED AA WITH INCOMPETENT/MEDIOCRITY and not anyone here that you want to argue against.

quote:

He is thus making a claim that has long been made against AA for Minorities. In my letter that I wrote to him I asked him how does his assertions JUSTIFY AA for minorities when all he has done is to say "White folks allow incompetence as well"?

First, list his:

"Allow Black Folks In Too..." clause <<< H E R E >>>; and his

"White folks allow incompetence as well" clause <<< H E R E >>>

The point is, it is YOU who have made those statement and have projected them onto him because that's what YOU THINK about AA on a number of levels. Nothing else can explain you imagining those things when NOTHING he said supports your usual unsupported and unsupportable BULLSHIT.

quote:

There would be no need or point for me, or anyone else to challenge his citizenship status, if Merv Dymally took it upon himself to come clean with his constituency by laying his cards on the table. Surely, Merv Dymally would not have anything to hide......

.....that is, if in fact he became a naturalized citizen before becoming a California State Assemblyman, a U.S. Congressman, Liuetenant Governor, and now a California State Assemblyman.

It is not the duty of the public to prove this, because again the voters are the masters, and all elected officials are sworn in under oath and mandated by law to be public servants servants.

**So he calls the man an illegal and says he has no duty to prove it....and that is why he has no credibility...as someone else posted...he mis-states things and thinks that is enough to make them true...and that is some really dysfunctional idiotic schit to do.......when one asserts themselves to say something is true, the burden of proof is on them to prove it....no one else, since they are the originator of the statement......man I see some people did not learn shit in grade school.....

"So he calls the man an illegal and says he has no duty to prove it....and that is why he has no credibility...as someone else posted...he mis-states things and thinks that is enough to make them true...and that is some really dysfunctional idiotic schit to do.......when one asserts themselves to say something is true, the burden of proof is on them to prove it....no one else, since they are the originator of the statement......man I see some people did not learn shit in grade school....." by Kevin41

"There would be no need or point for me, or anyone else to challenge his citizenship status, if Merv Dymally took it upon himself to come clean with his constituency by laying his cards on the table. Surely, Merv Dymally would not have anything to hide......

.....that is, if in fact he became a naturalized citizen before becoming a California State Assemblyman, a U.S. Congressman, Liuetenant Governor, and now a California State Assemblyman.

It is not the duty of the public to prove this, because again the voters are the masters, and all elected officials are sworn in under oath and mandated by law to be public servants servants." by Michael Lofton

Lofton,

You talk about rule of law ... Well, then you should know that it is always incumbant on the accuser to prove his/her allegations. So it is not on Dymally to prove his citizenship; although, if you were to pose the question to him directly, instead of a bulletin board, I'm sure he would have no problem doing so. Rather, the burden of proof is one the [only] one making the allegation-YOU.

So, Please, give that line of [anti] reasoning a rest. I can't believe that you don't see how idiotic it makes you appear.

"You talk about rule of law ... Well, then you should know that it is always incumbant on the accuser to prove his/her allegations. So it is not on Dymally to prove his citizenship; although, if you were to pose the question to him directly, instead of a bulletin board, I'm sure he would have no problem doing so. Rather, the burden of proof is one the [only] one making the allegation-YOU.

So, Please, give that line of [anti] reasoning a rest. I can't believe that you don't see how idiotic it makes you appear." by Kweli4Real

Kweli,

I try to tell him and CF the whole time....but you know what is cold? I read today that 91% of FEMA contracts are going to white companies. Now if these negroes want to defend that status quo against programs that was lowering that number (even more significantly in places like Houston where the anti-AA measure by racist conservatives was defeated), then you know where their heads and hearts are at....and what makes me really tell these negroes about themselves is when they argue on behalf of a political action that reduces our involvement in such contracts....and they think they really are presenting something logical from the premise of being a black person....that is absurd..to think that one can support actions that lock black businesses out of such contracts and explain it to me that supporting programs that include black businesses is f-ked up on my part. Man I would probably catch a case if they said that kinda shit to me in person....I find that shit to be highly highly insulting to my intelligence....so as a result I must be insulting in return....reciprocation is the basis for fairness.....nothing more.........but those negroes know that shit they promote does not make any sense...they are relying on that larry elder sensationalist tommin to get a rise out of black people.....because they have bought into black inferiority/white supremacy and see themselves as also inferior....negroes who think like that are never usually straight-up high acheivers who want to compete against whites....they want to appease whites at the expense of their own and in the words of MBM, "They want to appease whites to curry favor from them in some bizzarre azz way".......their behavior and thoughts are clinically illogical for who they are and what social realities THEY face as a result of being who they are......black......

quote:

Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

He attempts to prove that their brand of AA has allowed "unqualified people" into important positions. He is thus making a claim that has long been made against AA for Minorities. In my letter that I wrote to him I asked him how does his assertions JUSTIFY AA for minorities when all he has done is to say "White folks allow incompetence as well"?

It's a fairly obvious and transparent point. Whites oppose AA - largely because they assert that it puts unqualified people in jobs. Well, Jackson's article illustrates very clearly how qualifications have little to nothing to do with hiring. He shows how Bush irresponsibly puts highly incompetent people in positions of responsibility and power. In fact, Bush's behavior is PRECISELY the reason why there is a need for affirmative action in the first place. Without the guidance of law, white males would ignore the qualkifications and capabilities of others and merely put other white males in positions of power. Bush shows why AA is important in a crystal clear way.

Perhaps Jackson infers that it is mere racism and patent self-interest that has white people protesting against AA. They just don't want to a) lose ANY of the jobs and b) see black folks do anything.

Comprende?

Response CF?

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

quote:

Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

He attempts to prove that their brand of AA has allowed "unqualified people" into important positions. He is thus making a claim that has long been made against AA for Minorities. In my letter that I wrote to him I asked him how does his assertions JUSTIFY AA for minorities when all he has done is to say "White folks allow incompetence as well"?

It's a fairly obvious and transparent point. Whites oppose AA - largely because they assert that it puts unqualified people in jobs. Well, Jackson's article illustrates very clearly how qualifications have little to nothing to do with hiring. He shows how Bush irresponsibly puts highly incompetent people in positions of responsibility and power. In fact, Bush's behavior is PRECISELY the reason why there is a need for affirmative action in the first place. Without the guidance of law, white males would ignore the qualkifications and capabilities of others and merely put other white males in positions of power. Bush shows why AA is important in a crystal clear way.

Perhaps Jackson infers that it is mere racism and patent self-interest that has white people protesting against AA. They just don't want to a) lose ANY of the jobs and b) see black folks do anything.

Comprende?