I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

clark · 2003-01-06 09:45:42

Cal, affirmitive action dosen't happen in that way anymore- the Supreme Court holds that to be unconstutional. Also, the affirmitive action laws have been largely gutted, they are no longer being used.

The whole premise behind taking a minority versus a white peer, when both canadites are equal, is thqat the white ostenibly has more opportunity than the minority.

The real way this should be adressed though is by assessing socio economiic status, and not race in my opinion.

Palomar · 2003-01-06 12:07:24

Racism (and/or sexism) of ANY type is wrong, regardless.

*Agreed.

Trouble is, too many people don't give a damn about unfairness, discrimination, sexism, racism, etc...until it happens to them. THEN it's wrong.

That deliberate and willful apathy is, IMO, one of the greatest flaws of humankind in general.

--Cindy

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 14:59:50

I don't get it. I was raised as a tolerant, sensitive 90's guy, and I still get labeled with the KKK racist-white-bigot stereotype. What the hell? The next (and last) generation of white men are respectful towards women and treat them as equals, treat all races fairly, and encourage minorities, and we still get this kind of crap. Can someone tell me where I can get my skin-pigment changed?

soph · 2003-01-06 15:08:17

Can someone tell me where I can get my skin-pigment changed?

you just justified any criticism. You live in Colorado. To see what minorities are treated like, come to New York City. Take a look around Queens, Harlem.

We treat everyone equally, yet weve never had a female or minority president or vice president.

to say that everyone is treated equally is brutally ignorant. nobody labelled you KKK, white supremacist stereotype. You did that yourself.

clark · 2003-01-06 15:20:14

We treat everyone equally, yet weve never had a female or minority president or vice president.

Name me one QUALIFIED minority or female canadite that has run for President or Vice President that wasn't considered or denied the opportunity to run becuase of their color or their gender.

We've never had a monkey be a policeman either, are we discriminating against the monkies?

I understand the point you are trying to get across Soph, but I hope you realize the jump in logic that you use to support your argument. It is weak and does a disservice to your message.

better to point out the actual instances of racism then to make grand sweeping statements that fail under critical review.

Women and minorities can run for elected office. I am surprised that you would suggest otherwise given that National Security Advisor is a Black female and the Secratary of State is a Black male, who has been polled to WIN the presidency if he ran.

The Democrats has a woman as a vice president in the 80's.

We have several NEW female govenors that were just recently elected.

Is there more opportunity for improvement, yes. Have we made great strides in equal opportunity, a resounding yes.

The issue, in my opinion, should be limited to the realm of QUALIFICATIONS- not race. And this applies in all instances. If the only qualified canadites are white males, that does not neccessarily equate to racism. If however you can show that qualified women or minorities are losing to less qualified "white males", then you have a case.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 15:24:02

The issue, in my opinion, should be limited to the realm of QUALIFICATIONS- not race. And this applies in all instances. If the only qualified canadites are white males, that does not neccessarily equate to racism. If however you can show that qualified women or minorities are losing to less qualified "white males", then you have a case.

Bravo, clark

soph · 2003-01-06 15:25:34

Colin Powell should have run for president. I doubt he would have won, because he is black.

But I would have to say the two most qualified men in the last election, were probably McCain and Keyes. And both of them lost early. The military is a whole different animal. Anybody can succeed in the military. usually in militaries, qualifications mean more, because on the battlefield, thats all that matters.

who else? i have to think of a few examples.

and cal, you dont have to have someone else defend your rash statements. what he said doesnt make what you said any more true. why dont you point out the rest of my post?

clark · 2003-01-06 15:32:48

Powell didn't want the job. Both parties would have given him the ticket. Powell CHOSE not to run. And irregardless of what you think, the polls conducted in the early stages showed a majority of people in support of a ticket with his name on it.

I also laughed at the canadites you point out as the most qualified- McCain and Keyes- BOTH republican, one white and one black. Neither one of them got their parties nomination, so how is their inability to get a nomination from their party indicitive that America itself would not elect a minority or female pres or vice pres?

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 15:35:26

Can someone tell me where I can get my skin-pigment changed?
you just justified any criticism. You live in Colorado. To see what minorities are treated like, come to New York City. Take a look around Queens, Harlem.
We treat everyone equally, yet weve never had a female or minority president or vice president.
to say that everyone is treated equally is brutally ignorant. nobody labelled you KKK, white supremacist stereotype. You did that yourself.

Your first point I didn't understand. How did I justify any criticism because I live in Colorado? We have an 8% black population, and 15% hispanic, so don't talk to me about racism.

Your second point I believe clark debunked very well, thank you.

Your third point was gibberish as well. Do you have lynchings in the Bronx? Do you have cross burnings in Queens? I can tell you that we don't have them here, either. And Cindy pretty much called me a chauvanist pig who got .24 cents more than her because I have a penis. I rest my case.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 15:36:59

Oh yeah... Colin Powell was going to run for President before the so-called "Republican media" started tailing his wife after she had a nervous breakdown and needed therapy. He pretty much said that was sick and that he wouldn't run for President. I would have voted for him...

soph · 2003-01-06 15:40:57

the republican party wouldnt go for mccain because he actually wanted to, *gasp* change the way things were done.

i never criticized you for being from colorado. a weee bit defensive today, are we? but no, i was referring to the impoverished conditions that are mostly suffered by the minority. Lynchings, are, as you know, illegal. But it is statistically true, men make more money for the same work.

I would type more, but i must go.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-06 16:19:01

Clark, you know that politically, you have to be rich to be able to get anywhere in office. So if by qualified you mean rich, then obviously there aren't many rich minorities (ie, women, blacks, etc) who want to get into politics (they know better).

clark · 2003-01-06 16:28:26

Clark, you know that politically, you have to be rich to be able to get anywhere in office.

So the cynics like to say.

So if by qualified you mean rich, ...

By qualified, I mean by what is stated as requirements to effectively do the job. Last time I checked, there was no economic status requirement to be qualified to run.

In fact, I belive that our elected officials are paid well enough so they can just focus on that one particular job. If their was no pay for our leaders, than your gripe would have much more ammunition.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-06 16:51:44

We weren't talking about running, we're talking about winning. Black people could run for office in the early 1900s (indeed there were black senators before that point). But due to segragation and and increasing discrimination, they couldn't get anywhere (and in fact, after awhile weren't even allowed to run or vote).

If elected officals didn't get paid, I wouldn't have a gripe, because their positions would be largely voluntary, and there would be no incentive for them to do what corporate entities urge them to do via contributions and the like.

clark · 2003-01-06 17:19:43

We weren't talking about running, we're talking about winning.

If they are the better canadite, then they should win- unless you hold that voters, by and large, don't make the best decisions regarding who they "feel" best represents their views.

As for the Jim Crow laws, those have been overturned and abolished. Do Jim Crow laws exsist in the 80's, 90's, or the current decade?

And Josh, come on, you should know better- if elected officals did not get paid, how would they pay their bills?

Hmmm, maybe selling your vote to make ends meet would look attractive... And then there is the issue of who could run- who has the luxary of working in a job you don't get paid at?

Last time I checked, the poor needed jobs that paid- however, the RICH, well, they got a lot of free time since they don't work...

You know better.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-06 17:52:16

If they are the better canadite, then they should win.

If they are the better advertizer they should win.

And Josh, come on, you should know better- if elected officals did not get paid, how would they pay their bills?

I meant if they didn't get contributions during the campaigning phase, and all candidates used the same system, were given equal time, and so on.

Get paid / get campaign contributions, same thing...

But yes, you're right, I knew better...

Palomar · 2003-01-07 07:38:20

And Cindy pretty much called me a chauvanist pig who got .24 cents more than her because I have a penis. I rest my case.

*No, I didn't.

I don't hold you personally responsible for the unfair wage discrepancy in U.S. society.

You have the unfortunate knack of taking ::personally:: posted material which isn't directed at you, but rather is stated in general.

You took as a personal insult a socioeconomic ::fact:: in our society that I pointed out. However you respond to/interpret the statements of others is your responsibility/problem.

I believe I've been fair in my statements...unlike you.

--Cindy

George H · 2003-01-07 08:10:51

I don't get it. I was raised as a tolerant, sensitive 90's guy, and I still get labeled with the KKK racist-white-bigot stereotype. What the hell? The next (and last) generation of white men are respectful towards women and treat them as equals, treat all races fairly, and encourage minorities, and we still get this kind of crap. Can someone tell me where I can get my skin-pigment changed?

Oh boo hoo hoo WAAAAAAH! Big cry baby. You're twisting around what everyone's been saying here to make yourself look like some kind of frickin martyr. You weren't even a guy in the 90s, just a little kid, STILL a little kid. Why the hell would you want to get your skin color changed, if you can't even handle being white? Too bad someone can't make you black or female for a few days, it might be a good wake up call to another wise sickeningly arrogant, loud-mouth punk (YOU). Peel me a frickin onion already, so I can cry for you.

George H · 2003-01-07 08:15:45

And Cindy pretty much called me a chauvanist pig who got .24 cents more than her because I have a penis. I rest my case.
*No, I didn't.
I don't hold you personally responsible for the unfair wage discrepancy in U.S. society.
You have the unfortunate knack of taking ::personally:: posted material which isn't directed at you, but rather is stated in general.
You took as a personal insult a socioeconomic ::fact:: in our society that I pointed out. However you respond to/interpret the statements of others is your responsibility/problem.
I believe I've been fair in my statements...unlike you.
--Cindy

Nice reply Cindy. Nicer than he deserved.

Cal, quit lying about what people say here. You twist around what people say to make yourself look like your being picked on or persecuted. Liar. Trying to be reasonable with you is tantamount to tossing pearls before swine. Loser.

Proteus · 2003-01-07 09:36:04

I've been reading New Mars Forums off-register for a while now. I have a few comments. Cal, you are way out of line. No one here is calling you a sexist, KKK, racist, whatever. Soph's right-- you're doing that to yourself. You also deliberately lie about what a Mars Society member is saying, twisting things around, trying to put her in a bad light. I think it's time you straighten up your act or hit the road.

All Mars Society members here have been more than gracious & patient with you. The dues we M.S. members pay helps keep all this afloat; so show a little respect & grow up, or leave.

And here's one for you to chew on Cal:

One of the primary characteristics of Narcissism is an inability for ego differentiation; you just can't understand it when people aren't talking about you.

Think that over. And quit attacking people & casting aspersions on them because you either can't or won't understand where they're coming from, and why.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-07 14:41:10

Welcome Proteus! I hope you enjoy posting here more. Good first post.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-07 14:49:17

I don't get it. I was raised as a tolerant, sensitive 90's guy, and I still get labeled with the KKK racist-white-bigot stereotype. What the hell? The next (and last) generation of white men are respectful towards women and treat them as equals, treat all races fairly, and encourage minorities, and we still get this kind of crap. Can someone tell me where I can get my skin-pigment changed?
Oh boo hoo hoo WAAAAAAH! Big cry baby. You're twisting around what everyone's been saying here to make yourself look like some kind of frickin martyr. You weren't even a guy in the 90s, just a little kid, STILL a little kid. Why the hell would you want to get your skin color changed, if you can't even handle being white? Too bad someone can't make you black or female for a few days, it might be a good wake up call to another wise sickeningly arrogant, loud-mouth punk (YOU). Peel me a frickin onion already, so I can cry for you.

I wouldn't mind being a woman for a day. Men open the door for no apparent reason, they smile at you, an umbrella is assured when it's raining... oh wait... that's only when nice guys like me who respect women are around.

As for the rest of you, I'm sorry you feel that way. I really don't know who the mud-slinging is directed at, considering that Cindy bashed my point with her "socioeconomic fact". I suppose if all this forum is good for is getting your Jerry Springer "if-that-was-my-man-I'd-throw-his-butt-out" time, then maybe I will leave this behind. I'm tired of people saying I have it easy because I'm white. You're wrong.

Palomar · 2003-01-07 15:08:53

Cal: As for the rest of you, I'm sorry you feel that way. I really don't know who the mud-slinging is directed at, considering that Cindy bashed my point with her "socioeconomic fact".

*I "bashed" your point, huh? On the contrary, I was being more than polite and reasonable with you than you deserve.

Facts are facts. I didn't blame YOU for the socioeconomic fact. Would you be content to make 24 cents less for every dollar a woman earns, for equal work? No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't tolerate less pay for equal work...why should I? You keep missing the point that I don't blame you personally for the situation, and continue to be defensive and hostile. Some day, when you grow up, you might marry and be glad, at that point in time, that your wife has equal pay for equal work -- which would mean more money for you and your household too, in case you miss my point. Equal pay for equal work BENEFITS EVERYONE -- YOU included.

Cal: I suppose if all this forum is good for is getting your Jerry Springer "if-that-was-my-man-I'd-throw-his-butt-out" time

*Nice example of projection of blame on your part. No, these forums have been good for many things -- not withstanding your increasingly rude, combative attitude.

Cal: then maybe I will leave this behind.

*Do what you think is best.

I've written my last post to you, Cal. I won't argue with children.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-01-07 15:11:00

Cal, no one is saying you have it easy becuase you are white, or becuase you are male. Most people realize that everyone, regardless of color or gender, has to make due with what they are given in life, and struggle to make the most of it.

With that relization though, it should also be easy for you to understand that the color of your skin, or your particular gender will open certain doors for you, or close some.

Cindy, as a female, couldn't choose to fight for our country in the trenches- this is an opportunity denied to her solely becuase she is female, and those in power have decided that people with such a gender are unfit for such a role.

You being a white male inherently have certain opportunities that are easier to get to then say a black female living in the ghetto.

Now, none of this is your fault personally. You have nothing to do with it, but you do take the brunt of the complaints becuase you have identified yourself with the opposing argument in this discussion.

You must accept that you have certain inherent advantages in that you don't have to work against a system that by and large, rewards you for being white and male.

There's an old adage- a woman has to work twice as hard as a man to get half the pay, and Cindy gave you anecdotal evidence (which is backed up by scientifc studies) to prove this point. That's the unfairness.

Proteus · 2003-01-07 15:22:34

Cal: As for the rest of you, I'm sorry you feel that way. I really don't know who the mud-slinging is directed at, considering that Cindy bashed my point with her "socioeconomic fact".
*I "bashed" your point, huh? On the contrary, I was being more than polite and reasonable with you than you deserve.
Facts are facts. I didn't blame YOU for the socioeconomic fact. Would you be content to make 24 cents less for every dollar a woman earns, for equal work? No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't tolerate less pay for equal work...why should I? You keep missing the point that I don't blame you personally for the situation, and continue to be defensive and hostile. Some day, when you grow up, you might marry and be glad, at that point in time, that your wife has equal pay for equal work -- which would mean more money for you and your household too, in case you miss my point. Equal pay for equal work BENEFITS EVERYONE -- YOU included.
Cal: I suppose if all this forum is good for is getting your Jerry Springer "if-that-was-my-man-I'd-throw-his-butt-out" time
*Nice example of projection of blame on your part. No, these forums have been good for many things -- not withstanding your increasingly rude, combative attitude.
Cal: then maybe I will leave this behind.
*Do what you think is best.
I've written my last post to you, Cal. I won't argue with children.
--Cindy

Good post Cindy.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-01-06 09:45:42

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#27 2003-01-06 12:07:24

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#28 2003-01-06 14:59:50

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#29 2003-01-06 15:08:17

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#30 2003-01-06 15:20:14

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#31 2003-01-06 15:24:02

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#32 2003-01-06 15:25:34

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#33 2003-01-06 15:32:48

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#34 2003-01-06 15:35:26

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#35 2003-01-06 15:36:59

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#36 2003-01-06 15:40:57

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#37 2003-01-06 16:19:01

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#38 2003-01-06 16:28:26

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#39 2003-01-06 16:51:44

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#40 2003-01-06 17:19:43

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#41 2003-01-06 17:52:16

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#42 2003-01-07 07:38:20

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#43 2003-01-07 08:10:51

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#44 2003-01-07 08:15:45

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#45 2003-01-07 09:36:04

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#46 2003-01-07 14:41:10

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#47 2003-01-07 14:49:17

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#48 2003-01-07 15:08:53

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#49 2003-01-07 15:11:00

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

#50 2003-01-07 15:22:34

Re: I herd there gonna start drafting - the draft

Board footer