ignorant editorial...

[Rogmok]

is it me.. or is this guy just stupid...

"Questions for Liberals
Doug Hagin

Where those on the left of the political spectrum are concerned there are plenty pf puzzling questions begging to be asked. There is much hypocrisy from Liberals on just about every controversial issue. Abortion, taxes, racism, sexism, fairness, compassion, the environment, you name it and Liberals hold a questionable view on it.

For instance Liberal say they want to lower crime and make the streets safer. Yet they oppose concealed carry laws which have lowered violent crime in every state they have been enacted in. Liberals also are continuously warning Americans not to have guns in their homes, yet hundreds of thousands of us use our guns to stop crimes every year. So why do those on the left continue to preach against guns? Do they really want crime reduced?

Liberals also oppose racism, sexism, thisism, thatism, and every ism ever known to man. Yet they fully support affirmative action, which awards people for being of a certain color, or gender, while penalizing members of other races or genders. Why is this? Further these self-appointed discrimination fighters seem to love hate crime laws. These laws of course punish some criminals more harshly than others based on their skin color and the skin color of their victims. If we are to be a truly color blind society then why are Liberals supporting laws which accentuate the differences in skin color?

Still further why do those on the left insist on labeling everyone? Asian American, African-American, Jewish-American, This-American, That-American. Good grief why are these stupid labels necessary? And how are they supposed to bring us together when all they do is focus on our outer differences? Then of course there is fairness. Liberals can not seem to talk for more than two minutes without the word fair popping up. Apparently Liberals really want everything to be fair. But their version of what is and is not fair seems to be a bit skewed to many people.

Certainly fairness in taxation amounts to soaking the taxpayer depending on how much they earn. Liberals oppose all tax codes, which would truly be fair. Flat taxes, where everyone pays the same rate? Liberals do not like those. Consumption taxes, where again everyone is taxed in a balanced fashion? Liberals dislike that system as well. In fact, the only “fair” tax code to liberals appears to be one which punishes success, and takes way too much of Americans hard earned money and places it in the hands of government. There are so many oddities where the ideological positions of the left are concerned. They say they love children, everything they do is for the children, yet they support abortion on demand, which murders over a million innocent unborn children every year. Why? Are those still in the womb less than human?

Tolerance, inclusion, sensitivity, are all words used repeatedly by Liberals to express their desire to never, ever, hurt anyone’s feelings. Yet they seem to hold no concern for the feelings of most Americans. For those who are hurt by moronic zero-tolerance policies in our schools there is no pity from the left.

For millions of Southerners there is no sensitivity when their beloved Confederate flag is trashed, banned, and taken away. For Christian children desiring to pray in school there is certainly no compassion. So where is all this tolerance? Where is the sensitivity? Why do only certain seem worthy of these emotions to Liberals? Why even ask these questions? No Liberal will ever step forward and provide any reasoned answer to them. In fact none of the questions asked here has ever been, nor ever will be answered by any Liberal. These questions can not be answered because to do so honestly would destroy the lie, which is American Liberalism.

There are a few other questions which most of us have or at least wanted to ask about Liberals. In closing I will pose them for all to consider. Why are feminists and civil rights leaders always so angry? They always have the same scowl on their faces when being interviewed on TV. They look like they just lost a lot of money betting on a horse race. Why the anger? Why can a Liberal never answer a direct question with a direct answer? Ask them if they support outlawing gun ownership and they go off on a tangent about Wild West shootouts. Ask a liberal to refute medical information showing the unborn are living humans and their eyes glaze over. They start foaming at the mouth and begin cursing you, and ranting about enslaving women, and fetuses invading women’s bodies. Do they really believe this hyperbole? Of course these are questions which will never get an answer because the left makes no sense. But it can be fun to pose these queries to a Liberal just to watch them squirm."

[Banana]

This guy is a retard and uses simplistic explanations for extremely complex problems.

Liberals also are continuously warning Americans not to have guns in their homes, yet hundreds of thousands of us use our guns to stop crimes every year. So why do those on the left continue to preach against guns? Do they really want crime reduced?

Unless vigilante justice turns everyone on, how do normal citizens stop crime "every year" exactly? I agree that we don't need more gun control laws because all they're doing is preventing legit gun collectors from getting their hands on them. Gun control laws, for the most part, haven’t really deterred any more violent crimes involving firearms. How do you equate stopping assault rifles from hitting the streets with not wanting to stop crime? Explain.

Yet they fully support affirmative action, which awards people for being of a certain color, or gender, while penalizing members of other races or genders. Why is this? Further these self-appointed discrimination fighters seem to love hate crime laws. These laws of course punish some criminals more harshly than others based on their skin color and the skin color of their victims. If we are to be a truly color blind society then why are Liberals supporting laws which accentuate the differences in skin color?

Affirmative Action wasn't only put in to let more minorities into higher education; it was also put in place to keep these institutions from being racist. It was created to keep your white fathers and grandfathers from being biased when it comes to college applications. It was put there to keep you from being stupid. It's not simply a "You get in because of something you were born with" rule. Please. If someone has the last name of Chang or Roberto, it's still fairly easy for anyone with two brain hemispheres to find out what race they are. Even if you have an African American with a "non-ethnic" sounding last name, if he lives in the Bronx, you can still discriminate against him based on location. In short, Affirmative Action not only helps avoid discrimination based on race but it also helps with class and location. The only foolproof way is to assign everyone a number and nothing else OR don’t set quotas for any particular race.

Whites, generally, don't like hate crime penalties. Why? Because they're the majority of the perpetrators. Of course they're not going to like it. With that out of the way, being a colorblind society has nothing do with hate crime penalties. We're using them to punish someone ELSE that can see race based on color in an otherwise colorblind society. The only argument you can possible come up with is that hate crime penalties are unfair because it's a harsher penalty against whites.

why do those on the left insist on labeling everyone? Asian American, African-American, Jewish-American, This-American, That-American. Good grief why are these stupid labels necessary?

That’s great. Really it is. I would love for people to come up to me and call me a hot-blooded American. However, I’m living in what most minorities call the “real world.” The term Asian American was not a term I or any other Asian American invented. It was a label given to us by white folk. Now when we use that term, we get chewed out for not “assimilating.” Republicans like to use this argument A LOT. However, they’re usually the first ones to dice colored people into smaller groups or view them as “not American.” Yea, we’ve become enlightened as a society. We’re not split into categories called “White, darkie, and darkie light.” It was just “White and darkie” in the past.

Then of course there is fairness. Liberals can not seem to talk for more than two minutes without the word fair popping up. Apparently Liberals really want everything to be fair. But their version of what is and is not fair seems to be a bit skewed to many people.

What’s wrong with being fair? Does society yield more benefit for being unfair? There are losers and winners? Losers are going to gripe which is normal. If you were the loser all the time, wouldn’t you gripe? Don’t make it sound like your shit doesn’t stink. The best way to be fair is to compromise, which no one is willing to do with this country. It’s all or nothing.

The rest of his article can be addressed with this:

1.) Flat tax is perfectly fair or you can implement taxes based on a situation they can control. How about no federal tax on your salary but a huge sales tax so people can pick and choose what they want opposed to be ripped off every time they get paid? We get taxed for everything. If you can buy it, we can tax it. The only thing we haven’t taxed is the Internet, which they’re trying to change.

It works the other way as well. If you say Liberals want a tax that impedes success, you're taxing the group of people that are trying to make a living. Just because you look out for the rich and their interests, doesn't mean Liberals are trying to hinder "success."

2.) Loving children has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is not about murdering people but more of religious beliefs. You imposing anti-abortion measures mean you’re using the state to press your beliefs onto others, which is wrong. Don’t tell me how to live. If that gay guy is going to hell, let him go. Why are you so concerned with him? If someone is going to hell for aborting a fetus, who cares? Quit trying to be such a moral compass for everyone else. We have separation of church and state for a reason.

3.) Zero-tolerance policies are stupid.

4.) I agree with you there. I don’t believe that praying in school is going to emotionally damage someone else of another faith. However, don’t force everyone else to do what you’re doing. If you don't, then I think it’s perfectly fine. When it’s “prayer time” at school, just let every other religion pray in their own way. Regarding the flag, I understand why African Americans don’t like it because it’s a “loaded” object. However, I don’t think the flag will make anyone more or less racist than they already are.

5.) Republicans and right-wing Republicans are just as stupid. I’ve seen many of them get flustered and stupid.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Unless vigilante justice turns everyone on, how do normal citizens stop crime "every year" exactly?
Concealed carry laws stop crime BEFORE it happens, without anyone even having to fire a shot. Criminals don't like getting shot. If they gotta worry that any random person they wanna rape or mug might instead bust out a gun and kill them, they'll think twice. In fact, even if you don't carry a gun, you're safer in a concealed carry jurisdiction because a criminal doesn't know you're not carrying a gun.

The term Asian American was not a term I or any other Asian American invented.
Wrong, the term "Asian American" was invented in the 1960s by student protestors at SF State.

As for the rest of this debate, I'm not even going to get into it. It's been done before. It's a pain in the ass for everyone refuting people's canned arguments.

[TB4000]

Ehhh...liberal, conservative....makes me glad I vote for the non-existent party every year.

[BeTheReds]

Eric might not want to debate with you, but I don't have any classes today, so...


This guy is a retard and uses simplistic explanations for extremely complex problems.



Unless vigilante justice turns everyone on, how do normal citizens stop crime "every year" exactly? I agree that we don't need more gun control laws because all they're doing is preventing legit gun collectors from getting their hands on them. Gun control laws, for the most part, haven’t really deterred any more violent crimes involving firearms. How do you equate stopping assault rifles from hitting the streets with not wanting to stop crime? Explain.


I'm not so concerned about gun control, but I think that assault rifles are unnecessary, as are handguns. The only guns that should be allowed are very large very visible guns for hunting purposes. But then, the only people that will stop using their guns will be the good people, and criminals will still have them. They will also find ways to get them after guns go off the market, thus the only people who will have guns will be cops and criminals. I've gone my whole life without shooting a gun, so I'm not terribly concerned with them. The murder rate with guns legalized is higher obviously. The overall crime rate probably isn't.


Affirmative Action wasn't only put in to let more minorities into higher education; it was also put in place to keep these institutions from being racist. It was created to keep your white fathers and grandfathers from being biased when it comes to college applications.

Things have changed now. That generation which grew up before the sixties is soon to retire. Affirmative action awards lesser qualified members of some races with a place in the institution, while taking away those spots in the institution from more qualified members of other races. Usually it is instituted in such a way that the institution's percentage of people in each ethnic group, except for whites, must reflect society at large. Thus, it only helps large minority groups from which there are few top notch applicants, mainly hispanics and blacks. Since society is not even 2% Asian-American, and Asian-American applicants usually make up more than 2% of total applicants in most metropolitan schools, after the 2% is filled with the most qualified Asian-American students, the rest of the Asian-Americans are left to compete with those not aided by affirmative action, and, the least qualified amongst that pool will lose their place in the institution to a lesser qualified black or hispanic applicant in some cases. Thus affirmative action actually makes it MORE difficult for Asian-Americans to get into colleges.


It was put there to keep you from being stupid.

He didn't call you stupid. I'm more inclined to listen to him now. How is affirmative action even keeping him from being stupid, actually, since he is white, it could be seen as a way to keep him stupid.

It's not simply a "You get in because of something you were born with" rule. Please.
No, it's "You get in even though you are less qualified than an Asian or White applicant who didn't get in because we need to reflect the makeup of society, and within your race there are few qualified applicants."


If someone has the last name of Chang or Roberto, it's still fairly easy for anyone with two brain hemispheres to find out what race they are. Even if you have an African American with a "non-ethnic" sounding last name, if he lives in the Bronx, you can still discriminate against him based on location. In short, Affirmative Action not only helps avoid discrimination based on race but it also helps with class and location.

But you are allowed to discriminate based on location. State schools do this, when they award in-state tuition benefits to students from the same state. And again, affirmative action does not help Asians.

The only foolproof way is to assign everyone a number and nothing else OR don’t set quotas for any particular race.

I agree with the first idea. The second idea is the way it was before affirmative action. I thought you thought affirmative action was good. Why would you want to revert to the way things were before Affirmative action was instituted?


Whites, generally, don't like hate crime penalties. Why? Because they're the majority of the perpetrators. Of course they're not going to like it.
That's because in few cases they are ever found to be victims of hate crimes. And are accused of hate crimes when race had nothing to do with the crime other than that the victim was another race than the criminal.

Hypothetical examples:
A white man is beaten by a group of militant angry black men when he is found in the wrong part of town after police tape of a totally unrelated black man in another state is beaten by white cops is released on local news. This is an obvious hate crime by the definition of what hate crimes are, but those black men, if caught will never be tried for hate crimes.

A Black man steps away from an ATM after having withdrawn money. Then he is held up at gun point by a white man who demands his money. When he refuses, the white man shoots him and steals the money. If this man is caught, he WILL be tried for a hate crime despite the fact that he was concerned with getting money, not with hurting black people.



With that out of the way, being a colorblind society has nothing do with hate crime penalties. We're using them to punish someone ELSE that can see race based on color in an otherwise colorblind society. The only argument you can possible come up with is that hate crime penalties are unfair because it's a harsher penalty against whites.

Hate crime penalties are supposed to make sentences more harsh on people found convicted of hate crimes. He's not arguing the penalty, he is arguing how hate crimes are defined. The definition right now appears to be white on minority crime, despite motive. Minority on white crime almost never is considered a hate crime, even when there is clear evidence that there was a racial motive.



That’s great. Really it is. I would love for people to come up to me and call me a hot-blooded American. However, I’m living in what most minorities call the “real world.” The term Asian American was not a term I or any other Asian American invented. It was a label given to us by white folk.


It was invented by an Asian-American professor and activist.


Now when we use that term, we get chewed out for not “assimilating.” Republicans like to use this argument A LOT. However, they’re usually the first ones to dice colored people into smaller groups or view them as “not American.”

True, but at the same time, you can't deny that there are many people living in ethnic enclaves who don't even consider themselves Americans and have more loyalty to the nation they moved from.


Yea, we’ve become enlightened as a society. We’re not split into categories called “White, darkie, and darkie light.” It was just “White and darkie” in the past.

Huh?



What’s wrong with being fair? Does society yield more benefit for being unfair? There are losers and winners? Losers are going to gripe which is normal. If you were the loser all the time, wouldn’t you gripe? Don’t make it sound like your shit doesn’t stink. The best way to be fair is to compromise, which no one is willing to do with this country. It’s all or nothing.

We are capitalists. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is communist.


The rest of his article can be addressed with this:

1.) Flat tax is perfectly fair or you can implement taxes based on a situation they can control. How about no federal tax on your salary but a huge sales tax so people can pick and choose what they want opposed to be ripped off every time they get paid? We get taxed for everything. If you can buy it, we can tax it. The only thing we haven’t taxed is the Internet, which they’re trying to change.


He was arguing for a flat tax.


It works the other way as well. If you say Liberals want a tax that impedes success, you're taxing the group of people that are trying to make a living. Just because you look out for the rich and their interests, doesn't mean Liberals are trying to hinder "success."

Liberals are not trying to hinder success, I agree, but when you make Millions, and 40% of your money goes to the government, THAT'S A LOT! Sure you'll be okay, and you will survive and live a luxurious life of plenty either way, but if you worked your ass off for that money and beat the odds to become successful, you wouldn't want your money to go to people who don't work at all, would you?

I'll admit however that most of the people on welfare probably need it, and are not recieving it because of their own laziness, but there are some people who are lazy and recieve welfare.

2.) Loving children has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion is not about murdering people but more of religious beliefs. You imposing anti-abortion measures mean you’re using the state to press your beliefs onto others, which is wrong. Don’t tell me how to live. If that gay guy is going to hell, let him go. Why are you so concerned with him? If someone is going to hell for aborting a fetus, who cares? Quit trying to be such a moral compass for everyone else. We have separation of church and state for a reason.

I agree with you here for the most part...




4.) Regarding the flag, I understand why African Americans don’t like it because it’s a “loaded” object. However, I don’t think the flag will make anyone more or less racist than they already are.

The flag does not represent racial hatred and slavery. It represents Southern Heritage and the ideals that the southern states wanted when they seceeded from the USA. Those were, a small central government and state governments with much more power. Slavery was a non-issue, as some slave states stayed in the Union

[>:^|]

Rogmok ... I doubt it's just you. :wink:
Stay off those sites, I think it's bad for your health.

BetheReds: You live in Japan, don't you? Why do you think murders using handguns are so low there? I'm seriously asking, not trying to be snide.

[Rogmok]

Rogmok ... I doubt it's just you. :wink:
Stay off those sites, I think it's bad for your health.

BetheReds: You live in Japan, don't you? Why do you think murders using handguns are so low there? I'm seriously asking, not trying to be snide.

i don't normally go to that site.. i found the link off "asian-nation.org" or something.. for while i thought maybe it was a satircal website or something.. i was like, 'there's no way this guy is serious'

but as far as i can tell... this guy is serious

[Banana]

I think I should explain myself in more detail before I come off sounding really ignorant. That post of mine was basically an unorganized rant for the most part. I can elaborate on some points if you need clarification.

Regarding gun control, our current gun controls have done nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals. All it has done is prevented gun enthusiasts and collectors from getting their hands on them. Additionally, the “right to bear arms” in the Bill of Rights was designed, though perverted, to allow American citizens fight an out of control government if need be. You can’t fight an APC and heavily armored troops with just a handgun. Though I think this argument is a tad outdated, it’s usually the excuse the NRA needs to play around with assault rifles that have insane cyclic rates.

Regarding affirmative action, even though it is the year 2003 and we expect racism to be wiped out for the most part during institutional evaluations; I still believe that it effects a lot of people. Don’t get me wrong. I know that affirmative action is not beneficial to Asian Americans at all. I, myself, was a victim of it when I tried to apply to graduate school. What I meant to say was that affirmative action was constructed in the first place to keep whites from hindering minorities based on race or location. It was designed to not only give blacks a helping hand but to subdue white institutionalized racism. I believe that affirmative action should be kept in place but it shouldn’t be such a huge deciding factor like it is now.

Discrimination based on location with your example is fine. However, often enough, state and private schools disseminate against citizens that are in their own state. Saying a NJ student gets charged more because it’s a NY school is different than implying that you can’t go to a specific school, even though you’re qualified, because of where you reside due to negative stereotypes. A student getting charged extra for being an out-of-state student isn’t the same as a school refusing you entry because of their preconceived notion that a specific location is prone to violence. Additionally, in-state students get benefits because they pay taxes to public colleges whereas out-of-state students do not so they’re charged more.

It was put there to keep you from being stupid.

That’s actually an inside joke that I shouldn’t have used because it just added more confusion. Basically, I meant “It was put there to keep you (whites) from being stupid (racist).”

Oh, regarding the second idea about not setting quotas, I think that this would be a better example. For example, if a college only admits 500 new students a year with 200 slots reserved for blacks but 400 whites are qualified, they should give access to all 600 students. This would mean that there is no quota amount for whites, not blacks. Either do that or we could decrease the amounts of slots reserved for black students. My suggestion is to compromise and give a little elbowroom for all. I firmly believe that we should not remove a program that has benefited many people dispute being unfair.

Regarding hate crimes, I wholeheartedly agree with you that blacks are less likely to get charged with hate crimes if the victim is white, Asian, etc. I don’t recall the last time a black guy was charged even though he said “Death to chinks!” while he was bashing someone’s head in with a bat. Our society is so paranoid about making it look like blacks are guilty of hate crimes for fear of being called a racist in return.

Hate crime penalties are supposed to make sentences more harsh on people found convicted of hate crimes. He's not arguing the penalty, he is arguing how hate crimes are defined. The definition right now appears to be white on minority crime, despite motive. Minority on white crime almost never is considered a hate crime, even when there is clear evidence that there was a racial motive.

Agreed.

It was invented by an Asian-American professor and activist.

Yes, it was. What I meant to state was that whites are too busy associating me with this category rather than call me “American.” Eventually, it became a term that was pressed onto me. Like I said, I would love for people to refer to Asians as Americans but we’re not. So, we stuck with this term. Once we use it, we’re not blending with the rest of society. Once we call ourselves Americans, we get an impression that we’re not.

True, but at the same time, you can't deny that there are many people living in ethnic enclaves who don't even consider themselves Americans and have more loyalty to the nation they moved from.

Equally true. Though, it’s not fair for an American of Asian descent such as myself to be labeled and stereotyped with those individuals, which they so often do.

We are capitalists. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is communist.

In true communism, there is no rich or poor. They work much like an ant colony. I’m not saying that rich people should just hang out their goods to the poor, I’m disputing his argument against being fair. Trust me, I hate it when the government rapes me in taxes to help someone else that refuses to get a job.

He was arguing for a flat tax.

So was I. I’m agreeing with him.

Liberals are not trying to hinder success, I agree, but when you make Millions, and 40% of your money goes to the government, THAT'S A LOT! Sure you'll be okay, and you will survive and live a luxurious life of plenty either way, but if you worked your ass off for that money and beat the odds to become successful, you wouldn't want your money to go to people who don't work at all, would you?

I'll admit however that most of the people on welfare probably need it, and are not recieving it because of their own laziness, but there are some people who are lazy and recieve welfare.

That’s what happens basically with a flat tax. The people that make more, pay more. Personally, I like a larger sales tax as it gives citizens more control of their finances, if you will.

The flag does not represent racial hatred and slavery. It represents Southern Heritage and the ideals that the southern states wanted when they seceeded from the USA. Those were, a small central government and state governments with much more power. Slavery was a non-issue, as some slave states stayed in the Union

Agreed. I only mentioned that I could understand “why” blacks didn’t like it.

My main idea is that I support some of his ideas while making some compromises. Not all liberals are “Communist, God-hating, terror supporting” individuals. For this guy to give off that impression is completely unreasonable and dangerous.

[nonamerasian]

The flag does not represent racial hatred and slavery. It represents Southern Heritage and the ideals that the southern states wanted when they seceeded from the USA. Those were, a small central government and state governments with much more power. Slavery was a non-issue, as some slave states stayed in the Union

I wouldn't say slavery was a non-issue. It was a pretty significant issue of the time, expecially as the length of secession grow. Even before that, the economic issues tearing the nation apart were largely cased by the use of slavery.

Was it the entire issue?

Of course not, however, it was definately not a non-issue.

Some felt it was Lincoln's over-stepping his powers that helped keep those few slave states from leaving.

They definately weren't unanimous in wanting to stay.

Primary sources paint a different picture.

There was a lot of pro-South sentiment in those supposed loyal/neutral states. Probably the reason why as slavery became a larger and larger issue, the moves to abolish it were hard on the Confederate states and not all the slave states.

They were not to be lost simply due diverging interests in the issue of slavery, which was a big enough issue to cause such a consideration.

[krome]

Affirmative action awards lesser qualified members of some races with a place in the institution, while taking away those spots in the institution from more qualified members of other races. Usually it is instituted in such a way that the institution's percentage of people in each ethnic group, except for whites, must reflect society at large. Thus, it only helps large minority groups from which there are few top notch applicants, mainly hispanics and blacks. Since society is not even 2% Asian-American, and Asian-American applicants usually make up more than 2% of total applicants in most metropolitan schools, after the 2% is filled with the most qualified Asian-American students, the rest of the Asian-Americans are left to compete with those not aided by affirmative action, and, the least qualified amongst that pool will lose their place in the institution to a lesser qualified black or hispanic applicant in some cases. Thus affirmative action actually makes it MORE difficult for Asian-Americans to get into colleges.
AMEN. Finally an Asian who sees thru the Jewish/white liberal double-standard smokescreen. Use your brains folks. Affirmative action in collegiate admissions has been WELL-PROVEN to discriminate almost SOLELY against Asians. After it's been removed in a few schools, Black/Hispanic/NA enrollment plunged, white enrollment dropped maybe 1% and ONLY Asian enrollment INCREASED (typically over 5%). It's the liberals' way of stemming the greatly-feared Asian Academic Invasion and handicapping us as a potent socioeconomic/political threat. Wake up people! We need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot just to follow what the media tells us is "politically-correct." Yes, it may be politically-correct for THEM, but it is politically-INCORRECT for us. And unfair standards hurt us ALL Americans - as they make this country globally less competitive - especially against emerging technical/manufacturing giants India/China.

[nonamerasian]

That's because in few cases they are ever found to be victims of hate crimes. And are accused of hate crimes when race had nothing to do with the crime other than that the victim was another race than the criminal.

Hypothetical examples:
A white man is beaten by a group of militant angry black men when he is found in the wrong part of town after police tape of a totally unrelated black man in another state is beaten by white cops is released on local news. This is an obvious hate crime by the definition of what hate crimes are, but those black men, if caught will never be tried for hate crimes.

A Black man steps away from an ATM after having withdrawn money. Then he is held up at gun point by a white man who demands his money. When he refuses, the white man shoots him and steals the money. If this man is caught, he WILL be tried for a hate crime despite the fact that he was concerned with getting money, not with hurting black people.

Isn’t it difficult to get anyone convicted of a hate crime?

I’ve only spoken to on lawyer on the subject, but he said it is.

There was an extreme White supremacist who shot a little Black girl playing near his home and it was difficult to get him convicted of a hate crime, regardless of his memorabilia all over his home, his discussions about Blacks in the past, and other things. *

I think they guy even shot at Blacks before “by accident,” but I’m not sure, though.

The case must be a couple of years old now. I’m not sure if they finally got enough on him.

Anyhow, if I hate ___ and commit a crime against ___, that isn’t enough.

If I hate ___ and commit a crime against ___ while screaming, “I’m going to kill all you ___,” we may have something.

Even so, my lawyer may try to prove that that what came out of my mouth was just a result of my anger. Plead that my that actual motive wasn’t his/her gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, disability, or whatever is covered hate crime statute of that state, but rather in retaliation of an act that person had done to me or something else unrelated to that trait.

*That example wasn’t given by the lawyer, but he gave examples from his state supporting his stance.

[hooligan]

AMEN. Finally an Asian who sees thru the Jewish/white liberal double-standard smokescreen. Use your brains folks. Affirmative action in collegiate admissions has been WELL-PROVEN to discriminate almost SOLELY against Asians. After it's been removed in a few schools, Black/Hispanic/NA enrollment plunged, white enrollment dropped maybe 1% and ONLY Asian enrollment INCREASED (typically over 5%). It's the liberals' way of stemming the greatly-feared Asian Academic Invasion and handicapping us as a potent socioeconomic/political threat. Wake up people! We need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot just to follow what the media tells us is "politically-correct." Yes, it may be politically-correct for THEM, but it is politically-INCORRECT for us. And unfair standards hurt us ALL Americans - as they make this country globally less competitive - especially against emerging technical/manufacturing giants India/China.
wrong krome, affirmative action has done nothing but help the APIA community. look at the study nakanishi did at the affirmative action practices at berkeley. discrimination was the reason that APIA admissions dropped, NOT affirmative action, but affirmative action was used as a scapegoat. this pattern has been repeated at other colleges over the us.

affirmative action's benefits don't only extend to colleges. APIAs benefit greatly in the work place, a lot of APIAs dont' recognize this and that's where a lot of them sell themselve short.

there are several studies that have shown diversity to help with the learning process and how diversity has greatly benefited the student body at colleges and universities. im me sometime, we'll talk about affirmative action and APIAs.

-ben

[annie]

wrong krome, affirmative action has done nothing but help the APIA community. look at the study nakanishi did at the affirmative action practices at berkeley. discrimination was the reason that APIA admissions dropped, NOT affirmative action, but affirmative action was used as a scapegoat. this pattern has been repeated at other colleges over the us.

affirmative action's benefits don't only extend to colleges. APIAs benefit greatly in the work place, a lot of APIAs dont' recognize this and that's where a lot of them sell themselve short.

there are several studies that have shown diversity to help with the learning process and how diversity has greatly benefited the student body at colleges and universities. im me sometime, we'll talk about affirmative action and APIAs.

-ben
asian am education class @ work here.....but i think aff action is just a bandaid for the short term (college & work)...maybe there should be aff action from preschool...but i guess we have to start somewhere

[nonamerasian]

Asian American, African-American, Jewish-American, This-American, That-American. Good grief why are these stupid labels necessary? And how are they supposed to bring us together when all they do is focus on our outer differences?

It’s those who chose to label themselves who are tearing people apart?

Why is it necessary for hyphenators to drop the hyphen?

Instead of accusing the simple use of a hyphen for separating the country, this guy should be pointing a finger at those who would be so lame as a hyphen to prevent people from getting together because if he fears a hyphen is tearing people apart, they are certainly the ones to blame.

But, then again, is a discriminator going to ask me, “Do you label yourself as a Black-American or leave out the hyphen,” before deciding whether or not to discriminate against me?

I’m pretty much sure my hyphen wouldn’t be a factor in the situation, so who is the one focusing on outer differences?

[Banana]

wrong krome, affirmative action has done nothing but help the APIA community. look at the study nakanishi did at the affirmative action practices at berkeley. discrimination was the reason that APIA admissions dropped, NOT affirmative action, but affirmative action was used as a scapegoat. this pattern has been repeated at other colleges over the us.

affirmative action's benefits don't only extend to colleges. APIAs benefit greatly in the work place, a lot of APIAs dont' recognize this and that's where a lot of them sell themselve short.

there are several studies that have shown diversity to help with the learning process and how diversity has greatly benefited the student body at colleges and universities. im me sometime, we'll talk about affirmative action and APIAs.

Do you have any resources to prove this statement because I would sure like to see it.

Last I recall, White/Asian enrollment at California colleges either stayed the same or increased whereas black/Latino enrollment decreased when they removed the policy.

[krome]

Do you have any resources to prove this statement because I would sure like to see it.

Last I recall, White/Asian enrollment at California colleges either stayed the same or increased whereas black/Latino enrollment decreased when they removed the policy.
Do you have any resources to prove this statement because I would sure like to see it.

Last I recall, White/Asian enrollment at California colleges either stayed the same or increased whereas black/Latino enrollment decreased when they removed the policy.I posted shytloads of stats on *the other* site all clearly documenting how collegiate-admissions affirmative action discriminated against higher-scoring East Asians. It is undeniably institutionalized anti-Asian racism. Yet, people see what they wanna see and those who already believed otherwise simply glossed over it. In fact, I've repeatedly posted stats on a variety of topics, but it would take an act of Congress to change some peoples' minds from PC propaganda. They are usually rebutted by some vague emotional response unsupported by any data whatsoever. So, what's the point? It's like arguing with 3-yos.

I mean, this issue should also be common sense. When I graduated high school - I was NOT eligible for minority admissions or scholarships. My own guidance counselor bluntly told me, "Asians don't get minority status cuz your test scores are too high." Meanwhile, I noticed Hispanics and Blacks with lower GPAs & test scores getting accepted to with scholarships to more prestigious universities than me. And, the data supports this handicapping of East Asian-Americans. Any that doesn't I would have to seriously question.

Anyways, the MM.com post is now gone, I believe - but I may recompile the stats again later. I feel like I'm largely wasting my time on deaf ears though.

Liberals deathly afraid of the socioeconomic Yellow Peril:

"there are universities that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian Americans." - Bill Clinton (http://www.cire.org/press/chao.html)

“were Asian-American students not discriminated against in the college-admissions process, they would constitute the largest minority group, if not an outright majority, at many schools.” - Peter Kirsanow, U.S. Civil Rights Commission (http://www.vdare.com/malkin/preferences.htm)

The laugher, at least in California, is that Asian students take the biggest hit through affirmative action. Asians outperform whites on standardized tests, (http://www.larryelder.com/minorityprogress/dimaggio.htm)

PLEASE READ THIS SITE HERE CLUELESS ASIANS!!!! (http://www.asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm) It's created by an extremely bright, TRUE Asian-activist lawyer, Don Joe (http://www.asianam.org/whois.htm) who is down for the cause (http://www.asianam.org/index.htm). Now, when will the rest of us unapologetically be unafraid to stand up for ourselves and fairness? Forget all the racial-political confusion and playing sides - simply ask, "what's fair?"

[>:^|]

If we were truly serious about equal opportunity, all children would have access to a decent education.

And if this were truly a meritocracy, legacy admits would not outnumber so-called "affirmative action" admits.

And if you could choose between having the many advantages of power and privilege all throughout your lifetime or getting a few extra points for your college acceptance, which would you choose?

[hooligan]

Do you have any resources to prove this statement because I would sure like to see it.

Last I recall, White/Asian enrollment at California colleges either stayed the same or increased whereas black/Latino enrollment decreased when they removed the policy.
yeah, i left my books at school though :\ i'll find it given some time.

[hooligan]

I posted shytloads of stats on *the other* site all clearly documenting how collegiate-admissions affirmative action discriminated against higher-scoring East Asians. It is undeniably institutionalized anti-Asian racism. Yet, people see what they wanna see and those who already believed otherwise simply glossed over it. In fact, I've repeatedly posted stats on a variety of topics, but it would take an act of Congress to change some peoples' minds from PC propaganda. They are usually rebutted by some vague emotional response unsupported by any data whatsoever. So, what's the point? It's like arguing with 3-yos.

I mean, this issue should also be common sense. When I graduated high school - I was NOT eligible for minority admissions or scholarships. My own guidance counselor bluntly told me, "Asians don't get minority status cuz your test scores are too high." Meanwhile, I noticed Hispanics and Blacks with lower GPAs & test scores getting accepted to with scholarships to more prestigious universities than me. And, the data supports this handicapping of East Asian-Americans. Any that doesn't I would have to seriously question.

Anyways, the MM.com post is now gone, I believe - but I may recompile the stats again later. I feel like I'm largely wasting my time on deaf ears though.

Liberals deathly afraid of the socioeconomic Yellow Peril:

"there are universities that could fill their entire freshman classes with nothing but Asian Americans." - Bill Clinton (http://www.cire.org/press/chao.html)

“were Asian-American students not discriminated against in the college-admissions process, they would constitute the largest minority group, if not an outright majority, at many schools.” - Peter Kirsanow, U.S. Civil Rights Commission (http://www.vdare.com/malkin/preferences.htm)

The laugher, at least in California, is that Asian students take the biggest hit through affirmative action. Asians outperform whites on standardized tests, (http://www.larryelder.com/minorityprogress/dimaggio.htm)

PLEASE READ THIS SITE HERE CLUELESS ASIANS!!!! (http://www.asianam.org/statistics%20reverse.htm) It's created by an extremely bright, TRUE Asian-activist lawyer, Don Joe (http://www.asianam.org/whois.htm) who is down for the cause (http://www.asianam.org/index.htm). Now, when will the rest of us unapologetically be unafraid to stand up for ourselves and fairness? Forget all the racial-political confusion and playing sides - simply ask, "what's fair?" i really do think you've convinced yourself you're correct so i think i'd be talking to deaf ears. the second article is written by michelle malkin, if you have read her she's a highly conservative asian american who actually goes against a lot progressive objectives that help APIAs (and apparently supports abercrombie).

[hooligan]

If we were truly serious about equal opportunity, all children would have access to a decent education.

And if this were truly a meritocracy, legacy admits would not outnumber so-called "affirmative action" admits.

And if you could choose between having the many advantages of power and privilege all throughout your lifetime or getting a few extra points for your college acceptance, which would you choose?
it's strange because a lot of APIAs only see the benefits of affirmative action in the short-term, meaning, they only see the processes getting them into college. a lot of APIAs neglect to talk about EO or AA in terms of society.

jobs in managerial positions and acting are still very closed off to people of our communities as well as certain positions of power in colleges (ironically enough). affirmative action helps APIAs in that way.

this country is NOT a meritocracy.

-ben

[Banana]

Last I heard, she didn't "support A&F." She complained about the Asian American protesters wanting more than just having the company discontinue the shirts.

I think they wanted more minority hiring and sensitivity training for the staff on top of removing the shirts.

[hooligan]

Do you have any resources to prove this statement because I would sure like to see it.

Last I recall, White/Asian enrollment at California colleges either stayed the same or increased whereas black/Latino enrollment decreased when they removed the policy.
The Asian American Educational Experience discusses a case study of the affirmative action policy at Berkeley. nakanishi directly links how there were discriminatory policies (not affirmative action) against APIAs and a lot of berkeley officials used AA to blame for the lack of APIA representation in colleges.

another article discusses how ucla official blatantly discriminated against APIA students and while APIAs were more qualified, caucasians were admitted a a drastically higher rate. if you read the article it talks about how it was NOT affirmative action that was the cause of this discrimination but racism.

-ben

[>:^|]

i really do think you've convinced yourself you're correct so i think i'd be talking to deaf ears. the second article is written by michelle malkin, if you have read her she's a highly conservative asian american who actually goes against a lot progressive objectives that help APIAs (and apparently supports abercrombie).

*whacks hooligan's karma for even mentioning that evil woman's name*

What's the deal, anyway? So we shouldn't want to strive for some sort of racial justice even if it doesn't directly benefit us? (I note that I don't believe that latter part, but include it just for the sake of argument.)

I guess I'm just a gibbon. :tongue:

[hooligan]

*whacks hooligan's karma for even mentioning that evil woman's name*

What's the deal, anyway? So we shouldn't want to strive for some sort of racial justice even if it doesn't directly benefit us? (I note that I don't believe that latter part, but include it just for the sake of argument.)

I guess I'm just a gibbon. :tongue: haha don't touch my karma!

well, it does directly benefit us, certain ethnic APIA groups are benefitted by Affirmative Action while others are left to fend on our own. For example, in the UCs before the end of Affirmative Action there, the Chinese weren't protected under Affirmative Action, but i believe the Vietnamese were. The Japanese weren't protected under affirmative action but the Filipinos were. But, a lot of people realize that although affirmative action is there it doesn't hurt 'US".

i mean, you've heard the rhetoric though, diversity benefits us all. :D Certain APIA groups are more underrepresented than others and i think policy makers recognize this and make it so that people who need affirmative action are getting the help.

-ben

[krome]

second article is written by michelle malkin
So what? Does an article's author AUTOMATICALLY discredit or support the article? Why don't you try factually rebutting the data I've posted instead of giving a vague emotional knee-jerk response with no supporting data? That's exactly what I'm talkin' about. Don Joe is certainly no Michelle Malkin-type - what do you think about his views?

PS - My response to A&F: (http://www.modelminority.com/article611.html&mode=&order=0&thold=0)
"All-American doesn't mean all-white,” says Jennifer Lu, a student at University of California, Irvine and a former salesperson at a Costa Mesa store. Lu and several other young people say they couldn’t get a job or were fired because their “look” was not consistent with the Abercrombie “look.”

Why does this AF want so desperately to work at this lily-white store anyways? There's plenty of other stores she could work at - why the obsession with A&F? Why not Bennetton or FUBU? Maybe some of the racism lies within herself? It must be shocking to her that she's apparently NOT WHITE, perhaps? It's SORTA like her suing the KKK for not allowing her to join. The bigger question really is: why the fvck you wanna join a well-known colonialist company (http://modelminority.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=21) in the first place?

"The attraction is they get to buy clothes at cut-rate prices."

Ok, after all the anti-Asian A&F T's they made - any Asian that flosses A&F, much less GETS A JOB there TO GET DISCOUNTS, is a cheap sell-out. WTF peeps? Are all Cali Asians this clueless? Are these Asians basically suing for the right to wear derogatory "Wong" T-shirts?

Look, clothing stores ALL hire young, attractive people that match the market they are targetting - from Hot Topic to Gadzooks to FUBU to Foot Locker, etc etc. I don't see too many Asians working any of those stores - and certainly blacks are over-repped at FUBU/athletic stores and whites at Hot Topic/Gadzooks/beachwear, etc. How many stores in Chinatown have primarily Chinese staffs? Retail sales is very image-based, unlike many other industries. I mean, there is a definite correlation between sales/looks - so looks ARE a part of your ability in this case. What's next - "ugly" folks suing the modelling industry for discriminating against them?

A&F's discriminatory practices may be technically wrong, but no more wrong than many other comparable outlets. I say let them cater to the frat/soho crowd - Asians should simply BOYCOTT the store and NOT EVEN TRY TO WORK THERE.

If A&F wants to limit their market base - fvckin' let them! That's their own financial loss! So, we should be boycotting their damn stores, not suing them to WORK THERE AND GET DISCOUNTS ON THEIR LILY-WHITE CLOTHING! What's next - Asians proudly sporting A&F KKK robes? WTF IS WRONG WITH (some/most of) US out there????

Maybe Asians just need to start our own clothing lines and quit fighting over crumbs from Crombie?

PS - We all know who owns A&F (as well as many sister lines like The Gap, Old Navy, etc), now don't we?

[>:^|]

haha don't touch my karma!

I touched it. But I washed my hands afterwards. :biggrin:

[VV o n g B a]

If A&F wants to limit their market base - fvckin' let them! That's their own financial loss! So, we should be boycotting their damn stores, not suing them to WORK THERE AND GET DISCOUNTS ON THEIR LILY-WHITE CLOTHING! What's next - Asians proudly sporting A&F KKK robes? WTF IS WRONG WITH (some/most of) US out there????

Maybe Asians just need to start our own clothing lines and quit fighting over crumbs from Crombie?
the problem is that asians seem to love a&f. when i was in ny, the store i saw the most asians in was a&f. it was kinda shocking to me that all those asians either didn't care or didn't know about the controversy.

and asians HAVE started clothing lines. just look at nautica. the thing about nautica is that they don't use asian models any more than other name brands. and there are plenty of other smaller clothing lines made w/ the fubu attitude but they are just that... small. no one has heard of them and they won't hear of them in the future either b/c they're appeal is limited to the politically active.

[Banana]

What's the deal, anyway? So we shouldn't want to strive for some sort of racial justice even if it doesn't directly benefit us?

NOW, you're getting it.

Krome seems to recall my whole tirade about the NAACP so I'm sure he knows where I stand. Personally, I only look out for Asians, Asian Americans, and Americans of Asian descent.

Me and my people first.

Damn right, I'm selfish.

[krome]

the problem is that asians seem to love a&f. when i was in ny, the store i saw the most asians in was a&f. it was kinda shocking to me that all those asians either didn't care or didn't know about the controversy.

and asians HAVE started clothing lines. just look at nautica. the thing about nautica is that they don't use asian models any more than other name brands.
Therein lies the problem. Think about the REAL message we're sending to A&F by these actions:
1) Asians flock to the stores in droves.
2) An Asian-American (name?) designs derogatory A&F T's.
3) Various Asian groups protest and they pull the T's.
4) Asians still flock to the stores in droves. To buy gear, get jobs and discounts on more gear.
5) A&F discriminates against non-white model-looking employees.
6) Disgruntled Asian employees sue...for the right to work at such renowned racist establishment and earn discounts on racist clothing.
7) Asians still flock to the stores in droves.

Bottom line: Asians love clothing marketed exclusively to whites. They will stop at nothing (including legal action) to fight for the right to purchase said clothing and work at such fine racist establishments and earn discounts on more clothing. :frown:

As far as Nautica - Asian-owned does not necessarily mean "for Asians." A&F is Jewish-owned, yet marketed directly at Anglo whites. Which, by default, seems to appeal strongly to Asians as well. :rolleyes:

Bananas - I just want fairness. I will look out for others too, but NOT unfairly at our own expense while shooting ourselves in the foot. Cuz nobody else is sticking up for us, not even ourselves... :confused:

[>:^|]

The problem is that if we endorse the idea of a racial hierarchy, we are admitting that Whitey is on the top and everybody else is somewhere below him.

By the way, as a general rule, an article written by MM can be discredited based on its authorship. In addition to her rhetoric, she isn't particularly credible.

Now excuse me, I have to go whack my own karma for the MM reference.

[Banana]

But why should I be fair when everyone else is not?

Makes it hard to be fair, doesn't it?

It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. Try not to wear milkbone underwear.

By the way, as a general rule, an article written by MM can be discredited based on its authorship. In addition to her rhetoric, she isn't particularly credible.

Sources? I'm not particularly fond of her either. I just need some proof to discredit her.

[krome]

But why should I be fair when everyone else is not?

Makes it hard to be fair, doesn't it?
I think when you counter unfair policies, you ARE being fair. That doesn't make you unfair, no? It makes you fair.