Replies are closed for this discussion.
Sandy, go back and read what I wrote. I have already said, multiple times, that affirmative action is wrong and I'm opposed to it. It is unfortunate that there are so many Republicans who buy into the Democratic game of constantly worrying and wondering about what the other guy is making. Unions aren't perfect and there are always those who use the union to benefit themselves. I don't defend those kinds of workers. But because of them I don't oppose the the right of workers organize, either, because I believe that decision is fundamentally democratic. As for the issues with the Big 3 - it takes two to make a contract. Management is just as culpable as the unions. And no rational union is going to say "screw you, we'd rather all lose our jobs than take a pay cut." That's why you've seen pay cuts at companies like Boeing, Delta, United, and the automakers. Companies work best when labor and management work together. That was the model we had in the maritime industry and that's the future vision for the labor movement that I see. Both sides don't need to constantly be at each others throats. There is no reason why both sides can't work together. And the economic crisis we've seen is proof positive that some companies are just as capable of being lazy and greedy as the mechanic at your old auto dealership.
Equal opportunity isn't about equality of outcomes. I don't understand why you and some of the others in this thread can't recognize the difference. No one is saying that people who are unqualified should get jobs to the detriment of the qualified. No one is saying that we should take opportunities away from people and give them to those who don't deserve them. The point of equal opportunity is to make sure that people are chosen based on merit and qualifications, not something they can't control like their race or how much money their parents have. Everyone deserves a fair shot at success. That's all I'm talking about.
Sandy Cope said:Brian- You remind me of some defense lawyers who represent clients they know are as guilty as sin, yet they come up with every excuse in the book to defend the guilty party. It's a matter of playing on the emotions of the jury, and convincing them that there was a good reason for this person to commit this crime. So far, your jury here has not bought into your arguments. Politics is about playing on the electorate's emotions, as much as playing on the emotions in a courtroom. Your argument for "protecting" those children of bad parents, is an attempt by you to make everyone feel "guilty" if they don't have compassion towards those poor poor children who didn't have a chance, or making sure that through Affirmative Action type programs, they too can get the best paying jobs or admission to the ivy league universities, even though they were not as qualified. That is attempting to make equal those that are not equal. It redistributes opportunities, and insures that the brightests and the best are not always the ones who will be rewarded. By doing so, we now have a dumbed down workforce, particularly with Union jobs. I worked for an automobile dealership many years ago that had a union forced on them by one individual who only cared about getting more pay and benefits even though he was one of the biggest slackers in the shop. With the advent of the union that he convinced other shop workers to support, he was safe and cozy with a job for life, no matter how bad a job he was doing. The dealership folded because of the high costs to the owner by the Unions demands. I'm sure as a union man Brian, you know that it almost takes an act of congress to fire a union employee. Think about all those thousands of union employees that had to do nothing more than show up, sit in a lounge all day playing games and chit chatting, and got paid union wages and benefits for that. Think about where Ford, Chrysler and GM are now with the Unions still demanding and not giving an inch. Most recently I read that a majority of Union workers would rather have less pay and benefits, but know they have a long term job, but, people like you who support this obnoxious intrusion into companies affairs would prefer to "be compassionate, and help the downtrodden, and insure that everyone is making as much money as you can squeeze out of companies, for the sake of the little man." Again, redistribute the wealth by taking from the business owners, and give it to the workers, because those evil greedy business owners should be limited on their profitability. Equal opportunity huh Brian.
Donald, where have I said I support abrogating anyone's right to property? I haven't. And where I have said that I defend larger government, or the rolling back of our individual liberties? I haven't.
You're trying to paint me into some leftist caricature, but you're failing because you never address a single one of my points head on. Instead, you ignore them, pick out once phrase and riff off of it. Apparently you must have read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals because your responses to me have been textbook examples. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Unfortunately, it's not working, because whoever is still reading this thread can easily recognize what you're doing.
If you think that ensuring that people have access to education without being denied for no reason, or that people have access to employment is somehow a violation of our constitutional rights, you have no real idea of what constitutional rights we really have.
Donald Joy said:OMG, he actually said it--he used the phrase "collective good"!! I told you all he's communist. Brian advocates the violation of our Constitutional right to private property on behalf of "the common good," just as his fellow socialists Hillary and Obongo do!
Taxing people out of their rightful property to fund operations of government that have no Constitutional basis or authority of function is theft, son.
There is no such thing as the "right" to an education, despite what leftists like you and your ilk say, nor is there such a right as the "right not to be discriminated against"(even though people like you insist that there is, while doing nothing whatsoever about the widespread and decades-old Jim Crow-esque employment, contracting, and admissions programs that discriminate against white males)...
You can prattle on about the will of the majority and all, but passing laws that violate Constitutional rights, such as the specifically enumerated basic right to private property through taxation, is illegal and amounts to theft.
Donald, it's not a violation of someone's constitutional right to private property or liberty by providing good public schools. Or providing government backed loans that let someone go to college who couldn't otherwise support it. It's not violating someone's Constitutional rights to bar race, age, or gender discrimination. You don't have a constitutional right to discriminate.
Your rights to liberty and property enumerated in the Constitution are not inviolate. The 5th and 14th amendments only say that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Therefore, if there has been due process, you can be deprived of all three.
My constitutionally protected right to equal opportunity is embodied in the 14th amendment that states that the states cannot deprive any person the equal protection of the laws, which has been incorporated into the 5th amendment as well. So is yours.
How does equal opportunity differ from an outcome? Simple. You and I both get into Harvard because of equal opportunity. I work hard, study hard, and get good grades. You goof off, lay around and get drunk, and fail out of school. I end up making 6 figures and having a great life, you end up on welfare. We both had the same opportunity but the outcome was different. We both had the opportunity to fail or succeed on our own merits and we did.
If you do all that for your son, and someone else does the exact same thing for their son, and the only difference between the two of them is that your son has a parent who can pay for his college and the other man's son can't, your philosophy is "Eh, tough breaks, kid. The world needs ditch diggers, too." I think it's wrong. I think it punishes the child for the sins of the father, and I think it's unchristian.
Donald, I don't know what else to say to you. No amount of discussion or debate is going to convince you that you're wrong. All I can do is have pity on you, and hope that someday God will soften your heart and open your mind.
Donald, I'm not using any theology to argue against you. I wasn't quoting scripture, even if I used language that is similar. But from a theological standpoint, unless the crime is rebelling against God, which I don't think you're accusing anyone of, the sins of the father won't be punished on the child.
Ezekiel 18:20 “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
The kinds of sin we were talking about weren't mortal.
Donald, you weren't correct. I'm well aware that the "sins of the father" comment is from Exodus and part of the discussion of the Ten Commandments. That being said, I wasn't making a theological reference with the statement.
I think it's kind of funny that no matter what I say, you have an ad hominem retort. I don't know what has happened in your life to make you so bitter and resentful, but I'm sorry for it.