Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2013, 02:26 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Thanks for your input Frank.
One last question for the rest of the year:

What's your take on single payer health care?

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 05:02 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 02:26 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  What's your take on single payer health care?

I cannot deny the facts that single payer health care worked better than the pre-Obamacare US system. Europeans and Canadians spent less on health care, and got more. However, (a) I think Obamacare is going to make the US system worse, not better, and it's a step further away from single-payer towards crony capitalism and isn't a leftist policy anyway, and (b) this isn't an indictment of free market health care because the US hasn't had free market health care for decades. After WWII when the US imposed wage controls to prevent inflation so they could print money (yes, monetary policy affects EVERYTHING) employers only option was to offer free health care, which was exempt from the wage controls. Thus the free market system where providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) are vigorously competing with each other to provide the patient with the best service at the best price is long gone. Instead, your employer picks your insurance company which in turn picks your doctor, and the insurance company acts as a middle man that provides no value and has a strong financial incentive to see US health care costs skyrocket.

If you look towards a REAL free market health care system, where doctors do compete and try to woo customers, the free market system works very well, much better than the single payer systems. Remember the customers of free-market medical tourism facilities around the world are mostly residents of 1st world countries with single payer health systems who choose to fly around the world and pay out of pocket because they get better care in a facility that competes for their business, and the price is reasonable. If the single payer systems of Canada, UK, Sweden, etc., were the best in the world, their citizens wouldn't be flying to India to get their hips replaced.

However, I do agree that there must be a system to take care of the poor or those who have severe, expensive medical conditions. And I do want the rich to pay more. I only think we should do it without threats of violence. For example, if I were mayor of Los Angeles and needed more charity hospitals, I'd consider offering the top 10 donors to rename some streets in exchange for setting up a trust to provide free medical care to those who cannot afford it.

IMO, the main reason why the idea of charity became so offensive to progressives in the beginning of the 20th century causing most Western countries to abandon their libertarian ways was the rise of 'social darwinism', where, with the new theory of evolution and survival of the fittest, this stroked the egos of the rich who felt they were genetically superior and that it was their duty to NOT help the poor so they'd die off and their inferior genes would die with them. This was also the birth of the eugenics movement, to engineer a superior race, and it included forced castration of "inferiors" (California led the way with 60,000 victims), marriage licenses to prevent whites from mingling blood lines, and, of course, it spread to Western Europe. This movement was so ugly and there was SUCH a backlash, that, imo, the pendulum swung the opposite way and charity became a dirty word as people felt government needed to come in with guns and forcefully redistribute resources, as wealthy people became villainized. However, outside this period, charity was working quite well. All the major US universities were built through charity, the country had a network of thousands of charity hospitals providing free care to the poor, and charity was the backbone of the libertarian experiment. So, I would have preferred people tried to eliminate the evils of social darwinism and bring back compassion and charity, instead of abandoning them altogether.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
31-12-2013, 05:09 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Very insightful. Thank you. I live in Canada, but my wife is American, so I follow what happens in the US closely.
Happy New Year.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 06:52 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 09:29 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Even in the south. So, if the government had done nothing, there's no reason the trend would have not continued and discrimination would have been eventually rooted out.

What a complete revisionist "head in the sand" JOKE.
That's probably why Federal Marshals had to escort children to school, and college students to college.

References, or it's all bullshit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
31-12-2013, 07:23 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 06:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What a complete revisionist "head in the sand" JOKE.
That's probably why Federal Marshals had to escort children to school, and college students to college.

References, or it's all bullshit.

Yeah, let's compare references and see who is revising history and spewing bullshit. I'll place a bet right now that, as always, you'll just revert to name calling or silence rather than an honest discussion of the facts.

My claim which you seem to be refuting is this: Racism was becoming less and less acceptable, increasingly associated with uneducated, backward rednecks. Even in the south. So, if the government had done nothing, there's no reason the trend would have not continued and discrimination would have been eventually rooted out.

Therefore, your position is that racism was NOT becoming less acceptable and was either getting worse, or staying the same, until the government swooped in and saved the day. I'll wait for your references (but won't hold my breath), while you fact check mine.

In WWI blacks were segregated in the army and not allowed to interact with whites. By WWII whites and blacks were training together, and blacks were holding positions of authority. That indicates the trend was away from racism between WWI and WWII.

Also, during the Jim Crow era, the Supreme Court consistently validated segregation, however by 1944, the word racism was used for the first time when the justice referred to "the ugly abyss of racism".

According to this: "Some of the earliest public-opinion polls in the 1940s found that an overwhelming majority (about two-thirds) of whites were willing to support segregated schools." However it goes on to show that opinion polls showed segregation was become less acceptable, just like I said.

In 1944 when Irene Morgan refused to sit in the blacks-only part of the bus, the local and state courts supported the law. By the time Rosa Parks did it in 1956 the state courts had stopped validating the law (although they didn't overturn it).

Now, by what year black children could have attended white schools without federal marshal's escorting them, I don't have a crystal ball and can't possibly know. However, what we're debating is whether it was trending in that direction already and would have happened eventually anyway even without government intervention.

I can go on and on showing that racism was on the decline anyway, segregation was becoming less popular in opinion polls, indicating that eventually segregation would have ended anyway even without government involvement. I maintain you pro-government revisionists are flat-out lying when you deny this trend. It's like jumping in front of a parade and then shouting 'look at all those people following me'. I think that in 50 years you'll be saying the same thing about gays: that in 2013 Americans were deeply homophobic and oppressing gays until Obama heroically stepped in and valiantly stood up to hatred, ushering in greater acceptance. Being alive in 2013, I can see that's not true. The trend was already going that way anyway, and the gay community, not Obama, is responsible for winning over public opinion.

Now, I showed you my references, show me yours, please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 08:35 PM (This post was last modified: 31-12-2013 09:10 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 07:23 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(31-12-2013 06:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What a complete revisionist "head in the sand" JOKE.
That's probably why Federal Marshals had to escort children to school, and college students to college.

References, or it's all bullshit.

Yeah, let's compare references and see who is revising history and spewing bullshit. I'll place a bet right now that, as always, you'll just revert to name calling or silence rather than an honest discussion of the facts.

My claim which you seem to be refuting is this: Racism was becoming less and less acceptable, increasingly associated with uneducated, backward rednecks. Even in the south. So, if the government had done nothing, there's no reason the trend would have not continued and discrimination would have been eventually rooted out.

Therefore, your position is that racism was NOT becoming less acceptable and was either getting worse, or staying the same, until the government swooped in and saved the day. I'll wait for your references (but won't hold my breath), while you fact check mine.

In WWI blacks were segregated in the army and not allowed to interact with whites. By WWII whites and blacks were training together, and blacks were holding positions of authority. That indicates the trend was away from racism between WWI and WWII.

Also, during the Jim Crow era, the Supreme Court consistently validated segregation, however by 1944, the word racism was used for the first time when the justice referred to "the ugly abyss of racism".

According to this: "Some of the earliest public-opinion polls in the 1940s found that an overwhelming majority (about two-thirds) of whites were willing to support segregated schools." However it goes on to show that opinion polls showed segregation was become less acceptable, just like I said.

In 1944 when Irene Morgan refused to sit in the blacks-only part of the bus, the local and state courts supported the law. By the time Rosa Parks did it in 1956 the state courts had stopped validating the law (although they didn't overturn it).

Now, by what year black children could have attended white schools without federal marshal's escorting them, I don't have a crystal ball and can't possibly know. However, what we're debating is whether it was trending in that direction already and would have happened eventually anyway even without government intervention.

I can go on and on showing that racism was on the decline anyway, segregation was becoming less popular in opinion polls, indicating that eventually segregation would have ended anyway even without government involvement. I maintain you pro-government revisionists are flat-out lying when you deny this trend. It's like jumping in front of a parade and then shouting 'look at all those people following me'. I think that in 50 years you'll be saying the same thing about gays: that in 2013 Americans were deeply homophobic and oppressing gays until Obama heroically stepped in and valiantly stood up to hatred, ushering in greater acceptance. Being alive in 2013, I can see that's not true. The trend was already going that way anyway, and the gay community, not Obama, is responsible for winning over public opinion.

Now, I showed you my references, show me yours, please.

I already did. The Federal Marshals were REQUIRED in the Kennedy admin to forcibly desegregate the schools, and there is not a shred of indication they were in ANY WAY in the near future about to do that, and YOU have none. You are neither gay nor back, and have NEVER ONCE felt discriminated against. So you can stick your fatuous crap up you right wing glib ass, including your assumption (with NO evidence) that the thing that changed Obama's mind was political expediency, (and not his wife and children as he said). There was an Emancipation Proclamation in the 1800's. I suppose you're going to tell us THAT was well on the way to eliminating discrimination. The civil rights laws and voting rights laws of the 1960's were vehemently opposed. Very easy for a ass like you who NEVER ONCE experienced discrimination to say things were all about to change. What the fuck did YOU care ? How long EXACTLY are people supposed to wait to have WHAT YOU ALREADY have, to maintain your illusions that government can do nothing good ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2013, 11:59 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 08:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I already did. The Federal Marshals were REQUIRED in the Kennedy admin to forcibly desegregate the schools, and there is not a shred of indication they were in ANY WAY in the near future about to do that, and YOU have none.

Bull shit. You did NOT post one link to anything indicating that racism was holding strong or getting worse until the federal government stepped in. You've got nothing besides a "because I said so" to support your claim that the the black civil rights leaders were having zero effect, and weren't moving the needle at all in their efforts to get rid of racism.

You're arguing that Rosa Parks should have just kept her black ass in the back of the bus and waited for the Federal government to liberate her, because her little stunt accomplished absolutely nothing and was futile. But you've provided no proof, and, frankly, much of the country sees her as a hero because they felt she WAS having an impact.

You're saying MLK's life was a total waste and died in vain without moving the needle one bit. But we have a holiday after him.

Remember, I made no claim about how long it would have taken to desegregate schools had the government not stopped in. The only claim I made, which you find so offensive, is that the civil rights leaders were making progress and were succeeding in winning whites over that racism was unacceptable.

In addition to providing zero evidence that racism was losing acceptance before the government stepped in, you also seem to be unable or unwilling to answer my question if we should have affirmative action for gays. Do you think it would help or hurt the gay rights movement to have such a law? I suspect the reason you cannot answer it is because deep down you know it would do more harm than good and prolong homophobia since nobody likes to be told at gunpoint to "tolerate" someone else, and you win over hearts a lot better with positive examples--not guns. However, you don't want to admit it because this really is the same situation blacks faced 50 years ago, and thus you'd have to admit that possibly affirmative action for blacks likewise did more harm than good, and that maybe there'd be less racism today if the government hadn't stepped in. Regardless I'm convinced that if there was affirmative action for gays, then in 50 years the 'BuckyBall' of 2063 would be insisting the government ended homophobia back in 2013, when, having lived through it, I can see the government didn't do it, the people did.

Also, you know nothing about me. I could be gay and black for all you know. And you have a lot of nerve accusing me of being insensitive when the point I made which you objected to so vehemently is that the civil rights leaders were making progress and didn't die in vein.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
01-01-2014, 12:08 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Forgive the pun, but is seems this thread has devolved into gay fights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Foxen's post
01-01-2014, 12:47 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 11:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Bull shit. You did NOT post one link to anything indicating that racism was holding strong or getting worse until the federal government stepped in. You've got nothing besides a "because I said so" to support your claim that the the black civil rights leaders were having zero effect, and weren't moving the needle at all in their efforts to get rid of racism.

Racism was STRONG ENOUGH so people could not live, or eat or go to school where they wanted. That was common knowledge. Apparently you are totally ignorant of historical FACT. Obviously YOU never had to live with it, as you can dismiss it so easily.

(31-12-2013 11:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You're arguing that Rosa Parks should have just kept her black ass in the back of the bus and waited for the Federal government to liberate her, because her little stunt accomplished absolutely nothing and was futile. But you've provided no proof, and, frankly, much of the country sees her as a hero because they felt she WAS having an impact.

I'm arguing no such thing, you ignorant idiot. Nor Am I arguing ANYTHING about MLK. Nice FAKE try. YOU are arguing that the government need not have made ANY intervention. THAT is false. DO try to STOP PUTTING FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH, YOU FOOL.

(31-12-2013 11:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Remember, I made no claim about how long it would have taken to desegregate schools had the government not stopped in. The only claim I made, which you find so offensive, is that the civil rights leaders were making progress and were succeeding in winning whites over that racism was unacceptable.

NO. Wrong again, idiot. That's NOT whiat I find offensive. YOUR point was that govenment intervention was unnecessary. It WAS necessary ALONG WITH the activists.

(31-12-2013 11:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I suspect the reason you cannot answer it is because deep down you know it would do more harm than good and prolong homophobia since nobody likes to be told at gunpoint to "tolerate" someone else, and you win over hearts a lot better with positive examples--not guns. However, you don't want to admit it because this really is the same situation blacks faced 50 years ago, and thus you'd have to admit that possibly affirmative action for blacks likewise did more harm than good, and that maybe there'd be less racism today if the government hadn't stepped in. Regardless I'm convinced that if there was affirmative action for gays, then in 50 years the 'BuckyBall' of 2063 would be insisting the government ended homophobia back in 2013, when, having lived through it, I can see the government didn't do it, the people did.

You really cannot help your pathetic self can you. The ONLY way you can engage, is to put YOUR ideas into others mouths, and then argue against what YOU say they say. Colossal fail.

(31-12-2013 11:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Also, you know nothing about me. I could be gay and black for all you know. And you have a lot of nerve accusing me of being insensitive when the point I made which you objected to so vehemently is that the civil rights leaders were making progress and didn't die in vein.

1. It's "vain" you fool.
2. I made NO such statement. You totally made up that fucking lie, you asshole.
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. YOU are the one who devalued the work of those who insisted the government act. Your pathetic thread implied that people who are discriminated against should just wait until the prejudices of society fell away, (if ever), and if they didn't, too bad, as you are so delusional about what government can and can't do, you can't see straight.

You are so pathetically sad you can't see straight. Go away. Troll.
Another idiot goes on ignore.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-01-2014, 12:50 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(31-12-2013 08:35 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  including your assumption (with NO evidence) that the thing that changed Obama's mind [on gays] was political expediency, (and not his wife and children as he said).

A good friend of mine is an elderly gay man who was close to the Reagans and Bush Sr's. He said the Reagans and Bushes knew he was gay and were totally fine with it, and Barbara Bush was at the funeral of his partner in the 90's. They just couldn't openly accept it for political reasons. So, I had assumed that Obama, a Harvard-educated progressive, was also likely always in favor of equal rights for gays and just hiding it for political expediency. However, based on your insistence that Obama really was a genuine homophobe, unlike the more tolerant and modern Presidents like the Reagans and Bushes, and that it took pressure from his wife and children to persuade him to give up his backwards way, fine, I'll retract my statement. Are you happy now? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: