BF2S Forums Well, looks like the Democrats have lost the midterms

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, I'm not. You're just a brick wall incapable of rational thought. What you're advocating is special treatment for select citizens of this nation. That is no different than special treatment designed to keep them from attaining equal rights. It's about equality for all Poseidon, not equality for most, but special exceptions for others. We as a nation need to stop treating people different based on their race, religion or sexual preference and that includes granting them special protections and favors as well as stripping restrictions away from their advancement.

It's not special treatment if we also include non-minorities.

Again, as you pointed out, equal protection could be given to whites, males, and heterosexuals, if the law is properly written to accommodate all forms of prejudice.

It's completely unnecessary and redundant.

Well, I can agree with you on that at least.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's completely unnecessary and redundant.

Well, I can agree with you on that at least.

It's what I've said since the topic was brought up

I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action either, so I can relate with you on the idea that special treatment for minorities is a bad idea.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's what I've said since the topic was brought up

I'm not a fan of Affirmative Action either, so I can relate with you on the idea that special treatment for minorities is a bad idea.

All that shit does is further entrench racism in this country. Can't have equality until you start treating everyone equal.

Agreed, and one of the unintended consequences of Affirmative Action is that rich black kids often end up getting a lot of the scholarships that are more aimed at poor ones, since the policies are race-specific rather than class-specific.

Another interesting thing is that Asians are sometimes excluded from Affirmative Action-style policies at colleges, since they literally score so much higher than most other minorities on a lot of things.

It's as if we're telling Asians "you're too smart", while we tell most other minorities "you're too dumb to not need help."

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

All that shit does is further entrench racism in this country. Can't have equality until you start treating everyone equal.

Agreed, and one of the unintended consequences of Affirmative Action is that rich black kids often end up getting a lot of the scholarships that are more aimed at poor ones, since the policies are race-specific rather than class-specific.

Another interesting thing is that Asians are sometimes excluded from Affirmative Action-style policies at colleges, since they literally score so much higher than most other minorities on a lot of things.

It's as if we're telling Asians "you're too smart", while we tell most other minorities "you're too dumb to not need help."

My high school girlfriend got into Carnegie Mellon largely because she listed herself as African American on college applications. Her grandparents were from South Africa and she is a white Jew.

LOL...   I've heard that some colleges literally make it harder for Asians to enter because of the scoring discrepancies I referenced.

I just think universities should take the best applicants they get regardless of race.  If that means the college ends up becoming 100% Asian, who cares?

The only quotas that make sense for public universities are ones that ensure that a certain percentage of in-state students attend.  That makes sense because of the tax revenue involved.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

My high school girlfriend got into Carnegie Mellon largely because she listed herself as African American on college applications. Her grandparents were from South Africa and she is a white Jew.

LOL...   I've heard that some colleges literally make it harder for Asians to enter because of the scoring discrepancies I referenced.

I just think universities should take the best applicants they get regardless of race.  If that means the college ends up becoming 100% Asian, who cares?

The only quotas that make sense for public universities are ones that ensure that a certain percentage of in-state students attend.  That makes sense because of the tax revenue involved.

Well, they're actually better off taking out of state students because the state residents don't subsidize their tuition.

Profit wise, yes.  However, taxpayers would understandably protest not having many of their own students enter the colleges they pay for through local taxes.

There are few public universities that don't have a significant quota for in-state students.  The University of Virginia is one of those few.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

My high school girlfriend got into Carnegie Mellon largely because she listed herself as African American on college applications. Her grandparents were from South Africa and she is a white Jew.

LOL...   I've heard that some colleges literally make it harder for Asians to enter because of the scoring discrepancies I referenced.

I just think universities should take the best applicants they get regardless of race.  If that means the college ends up becoming 100% Asian, who cares?

The only quotas that make sense for public universities are ones that ensure that a certain percentage of in-state students attend.  That makes sense because of the tax revenue involved.

Well, they're actually better off taking out of state students because the state residents don't subsidize their tuition.

it's easier to get into UC schools if youre a cali state resident.

Ticia wrote:

Did the GOP manage to get enough power to do any actual damage though? How can they push any of their agenda without the Senate or the White House?

Controlling the House will be more about taunting Obama than fixing any of the countries real problems.

Nothing will get done. And... that's pretty much the best situation to be in

FEOS wrote:

The opposition party winning the House is the best situation, since the House controls the purse strings.

I thought that the Senate Appropriations Committee had the most budgetary power.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The opposition party winning the House is the best situation, since the House controls the purse strings.

I thought that the Senate Appropriations Committee had the most budgetary power.

Nope. House ways and means, if I'm not mistaken. All budgetary issues must originate in and pass the House.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

So the Republicans are in charge in the US now?


Another step backwards in to the already stepped on turd for the US

Er -no on both of your observations.

All he knows about American politics is "Bush is bad". Best leave him alone

Macbeth wrote:

Floppy thinks we use a parliamentary system. lol

Silly Euros. Anyway, to those who criticize me, fuck you all. I'm too happy to care about you.

but even if democrat ideas are made into policy it usually turns to out to be shite. see the healthcare bill

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

but even if democrat ideas are made into policy it usually turns to out to be shite. see the healthcare bill

It was shit because they had to pander to special interests and the GOP, as well as the more centrist democrats.

Pretty much.  It doesn't matter which party is in power.  Special interests have poisoned the well.

The system is broken and can't really be fixed.