Applying Affirmative Action

[petros]

They won fair and square right?

 

[gerryh]

I'm still waiting to hear what it was that we won at and they lost at.

 

[petros]

We gained Indian tacos.

Which sounds like an excellent idea for lunch.

I hope 4 Winds is open today.

 

[YukonJack]

I'm still waiting to hear what it was that we won at and they lost at.

Ask Indians who are not part of the hierarchy that controls and benefits from gambling.

Like, you know, about 99% of the suckers.

 

[gerryh]

Ask Indians who are not part of the hierarchy that controls and benefits from gambling.

Like, you know, about 99% of the suckers.

You made the statement, I'm asking you.

 

[YukonJack]

Now, this is getting side tracked even further, but I have to ask. Here in Canada, what exactly did "they" lose and "we" win?

People of substance run governments. People of no substance, aka LOSERS run casinoes.

So, call me racist or anything else your little heart desires.

 

[TenPenny]

People of substance run governments.

Ah, so you do agree that Obama, and Carter, are people of substance, and far superior to losers like Donald Trump.

 

[YukonJack]

Ah, so you do agree that Obama, and Carter, are people of substance, and far superior to losers like Donald Trump.

One of the most distinguishing characteristics of born losers is to take someone else's comments out of context and/or quoting only portions, most most convenient to their losing argument.

TenPenny, you win!!!

 

[Nuggler]

Oh, of course.

JeffCohen.org Media Beat Clarence Thomas: Affirmative Action Success Story

Clarence Thomas: Affirmative Action Success Story

There is something unseemly about a guy who has just built a house on the beach and is now leading the charge to stop all further beach-front construction.
Or a recent immigrant who climbs the soapbox to call for a halt to further immigration.
Or a beneficiary of affirmative action programs who climbs the ladder of success by attacking affirmative action.
That kind of unseemliness was demonstrated this month by Justice Clarence Thomas. But few reporters took note -- even though it should be the media's job to spotlight hypocrisy.
Thomas cast the deciding vote in the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision to narrow federal affirmative action programs. But Thomas went beyond even fellow conservatives on the bench -- he argued for an immediate end to affirmative action.
There's an obvious contradiction here: Clarence Thomas benefited enormously from the kind of affirmative action programs he now seeks to kill.
Indeed, Thomas' rise from his dirt-poor upbringing in rural Georgia into an elite Ivy League law school is an affirmative action success story. But don't take our word for it. Take his.
In a November 1983 speech to his staff at the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, Thomas called affirmative action ''critical to minorities and women in this society.''
Then, his remarks got personal: ''But for them (affirmative action laws), God only knows where I would be today. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years.''
As an undergraduate at Holy Cross College, Thomas received a scholarship set aside for racial minorities. He was admitted to Yale Law School in 1971 as part of an aggressive (and successful) affirmative action program with a clear goal: 10 percent minority enrollment. Yale offered him generous financial aid.
Affirmative action can't guarantee success, but it can open doors previously closed to women and people of color. The rest is up to those who walk through the doors.
By all accounts, Thomas was a hard worker who studied long hours. But his place at Yale Law School -- his key to later success -- was opened by a race-conscious admissions program, the kind he is now intent on outlawing.
After this month's Supreme Court decision, few news outlets explored the sharp contrast between Clarence Thomas' obsession with destroying affirmative action and his own personal history.
One wonders what Thomas believes about his past. Maybe he prefers the fairy-tale account provided by Rush Limbaugh, whose talk show he listens to each day: ''Clarence Thomas escaped the bonds of poverty by methods other than those prescribed by these civil rights organizations.''
The truth is that Thomas owes thanks to the civil rights movement -- whose decades of lawsuits, protests and lobbying removed barriers for individuals like Thomas. Yet he seems to relish his role as one of the movement's main enemies.
Since the early 1980s, Thomas' career soared thanks to a perverse form of racial preference. It was his race, as Thomas has admitted, that got him two civil rights posts in the Reagan White House; the jobs came because he opposed the civil rights movement. So did his boss, President Ronald Reagan, whose opposition dated back to the years of Martin Luther King Jr.
President Bush -- who, like Reagan, had opposed the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -- later chose Thomas to fill the Supreme Court seat of civil rights legend Thurgood Marshall, the only other African-American to sit on the highest court.
In his recent Supreme Court opinion blasting affirmative action, Thomas could find no moral difference between ''laws designed to subjugate a race'' and laws that benefit a race ''in order to foster some current notion of equality.''
Thomas went on to complain that affirmative action programs stigmatize the beneficiaries -- an argument not raised by the plaintiff in the case, a white building contractor who says he unfairly lost federal work to a Latino-owned business.
Responding to Thomas, Justice John Paul Stevens pointed out that if beneficiaries of affirmative action feel stigmatized, they can simply ''opt out of the program.''
It's worth considering. If Thomas feels traumatized or stigmatized for having benefited from affirmative action, he could give back his law diploma.
Such a move would be absurd -- since Thomas earned his degree by studying hard and passing all required exams.
Even more absurd, though, is Thomas' current mania for closing doors to others that the civil rights movement helped open for him.







you were saying ....

Gopher; That was an excellent post re: Thomas. BUT all reasonable discourse is lost on Yukon Jack. A total waste of time.

Wish his name was Alaska Jack or Russian Jack.............even China Jack...........or Jack MeHoff.


Jeebus!!! I didn't wanna quote the WHOLE THING. gotta get my techie stuff down better

 

[lone wolf]

Be kind.... Hate's the only thing he knows - but wouldn't dare say it to anyone's face....

 

[gerryh]

I have no desire or intention to honour Aboriginal Day. They lost, we won.

Here's your statement

Now, this is getting side tracked even further, but I have to ask. Here in Canada, what exactly did "they" lose and "we" win?

here's my question.

People of substance run governments. People of no substance, aka LOSERS run casinoes.

So, call me racist or anything else your little heart desires.

and here's your supposed answer. A statement that has NOTHING to do with the question concerning your original statement. So, how about you try again and answer me question.

 

[JLM]

People of substance run governments. People of no substance, aka LOSERS run casinoes.

Where do you come up with this sh*t? In fact it's likely just the opposite.............Gov'ts don't have to show a profit or be accountable for the money they squander, casinos have to show a profit or they are no longer in business. :lol:

 

[YukonJack]

Here's your statement




here's my question.




and here's your supposed answer. A statement that has NOTHING to do with the question concerning your original statement. So, how about you try again and answer me question.

How about speaking/writing in a comprehensible English-like language?

 

[gerryh]

How about speaking/writing in a comprehensible English-like language?

In other words, you won't explain your historically inaccurate statement. No problem, I can understand how someone that is ignorant of Canadian history would not want to put that ignorance out there for everyone to see.

 

[YukonJack]

Where do you come up with this sh*t? In fact it's likely just the opposite.............Gov'ts don't have to show a profit or be accountable for the money they squander, casinos have to show a profit or they are no longer in business. :lol:

How do YOU come up with nonsense like that?

If any government had the odds stacked in their favour like casinoes do, there would never be any deficit. Those who run the casinoes are losers everywhere else in life. Casinoes are the ONLY place where they can pretend to be able to create the illusion that they don't need a government ministry dedicated to suck off taxpayers' money to support them.

Those who run governments may or may not be able to do it successfully, but, at least the odds are not stacked in their favour, like at casinoes.

 

[TenPenny]

One of the most distinguishing characteristics of born losers is to take someone else's comments out of context and/or quoting only portions, most most convenient to their losing argument.

Awesome, billy, just awesome.

 

[gerryh]

How do YOU come up with nonsense like that?

If any government had the odds stacked in their favour like casinoes do, there would never be any deficit. Those who run the casinoes are losers everywhere else in life. Casinoes are the ONLY place where they can pretend to be able to create the illusion that they don't need a government ministry dedicated to suck off taxpayers' money to support them.

Those who run governments may or may not be able to do it successfully, but, at least the odds are not stacked in their favour, like at casinoes.

and how does this have ANYTHING to do with you "have no desire or intention to honour Aboriginal Day. They lost, we won"


again, what did "they" lose and what did "we" win?

 

[YukonJack]

In other words, you won't explain your historically inaccurate statement. No problem, I can understand how someone that is ignorant of Canadian history would not want to put that ignorance out there for everyone to see.

gerryh, my statement may indeed have been historically in accurate.

After all, I paying and paying and paying and paying and paying with my taxes for those who can't do bugger all for themselves except for running casinoes, stacked in their favour.

The losers are the winners.

 

[gerryh]

gerryh, my statement may indeed have been historically in accurate.

After all, I paying and paying and paying and paying and paying with my taxes for those who can't do bugger all for themselves except for running casinoes, stacked in their favour.

The losers are the winners.

You're paying what your government has agreed to pay for land and resources that don't belong to them.

 

[petros]

People of substance run governments. People of no substance, aka LOSERS run casinoes.

So, call me racist or anything else your little heart desires.

Let me get this right? The Manitoba government who runs casinos and is a beneficiary of WCLC and as a resident of Manitoba you are part owner and a beneficiary of the McPhillips Station Casino? Correct? Yes indeed it is. I guess that makes you one big assed Socialist loser eh YukonJack?

Next time you get your statin pills thank a loser like yourself for owning a Casino and funding your Rx.