BK>>> The point of affirmative action is to insure success is   
    BK>>> distributed regardless of race. Only those who oppose AA must   
    BK>>> believe there is no racial compenent to poverty.   
      
    LL>>> The point of affirmative action is to discriminate in favor   
    LL>>> of minorities - in most cases meaning blacks.  Once equality   
      
   BK>>You really are not familar with the history of affirmative   
   BK>>action, are you.   
      
    LL> Of course I am!  Of course I am!  It is a history of   
    LL> discrimination!   
      
    So, when did it start, who ordered it, and why?   
      
   BK>>Some years back I found one of the annual almanacs, don't recall   
   BK>>which but one of the top ones, had regular analysis of affirmative   
   BK>>action. They found that 90% of the benefits of affirmative action   
   BK>>went to whites.   
      
    LL> White folks created it for their own benefit.  By creating   
    LL> affirmative action, white folks expanded the work force for   
    LL> employers.  An expanded work force meant more qualified   
    LL> workers for employers to choose from.   
      
    It said 90% of the benefits of AA went to white people.   
      
    Employers did not need a law to hire non-whites.   
      
    LL> Although not part of affirmative action, this example says   
    LL> it all -   
      
    LL> Paul "Bear" Bryant, head football coach at Alabama, wanted   
    LL> to offer full scholarships to black athletes.  But he was   
    LL> unable to do so due to opposition from Alabama alumni.  So   
    LL> he got the Alabama athletic director to get in touch with   
    LL> the University of Southern California athletic director,   
    LL> thus setting up a football game between Alabama and USC.   
    LL> The game was televised nationally, and played at Alabama.   
    LL> USC easily won the game, by a wide margin.  I will not   
    LL> repeat the taunts made by Alabama fans, which were very   
    LL> carefully edited out from television.  The Alabama alumni   
    LL> got the picture, and from that day forward allowed black   
    LL> athletes to receive full scholarships.   
      
    Which has nothing to do with what I said. Nor does it have   
    anything to do with affirmative action.   
      
    LL>>> has been reached, affirmative action programs are no longer   
    LL>>> needed and should be dismantled.  However, once inequalities   
    LL>>> re-emerge, affirmative action programs should be put back   
    LL>>> in place.  This on again/off again approach is the only way   
    LL>>> affirmative action programs can work in a truly fair manner.   
      
   BK>>Since Equality has not been reached, that's not relevant, yet.   
      
    LL> The best that can be hoped for is a +/- percentage.  Not   
    LL> really a quota system, but an approximation.   
      
    It's not even approximately equal.   
      
    BK>>> Which is true. We need affirmative action for all the poor in   
    BK>>> America.   
      
    LL>>> Bob Dole said much the same thing, but wanted to change it   
    LL>>> from being a race-based program to being an economic-based   
      
   BK>>Which would mean, in the real world, focusing on white poor   
   BK>>first.   
      
    LL> That was Bob Dole's idea, basing his argument on economic   
    LL> terms rather than on racial terms.  Problem was he didn't   
    LL> follow up with an actual plan of his own.   
      
    Maybe he didn't mean it.   
      
    ...   
      
    LL>>> Do you think the Congress will do anything to save the SSDI   
    LL>>> trust program?  By doing nothing, the cuts take effect   
      
   BK>>Not if the Tea Party can stop them.   
      
    LL> Not to worry.  Ted Cruz will come to the rescue.  After   
    LL> all, he has already stopped the Democrats.  He has also   
    LL> stopped the Republicans. So who else is left to stop him?   
    LL> You?  Please.  Give me a break.   
      
    There are two effective political parties in DC. The Democratic   
    Party and the Tea Party. The republicans are just a figment of   
    some Tea Baggers imagination any more.   
      
    ...   
      
    LL>>> After gutting the SSDI program, Republican lawmakers will   
    LL>>> move on to gutting the Social Security program for retirees   
    LL>>> age 65 and over. Won't that be grand?   
      
   BK>>Gutting SSDI will cause so much trouble, and even trying to end   
   BK>>Social Security, the republicans will lose all the control they   
   BK>>have now.   
      
    LL> That is why the GOP had to gut SNAP first.   
    LL> By starving the poor, there will be fewer mouths   
    LL> to feed.  And that means less opposition from   
    LL> the poor, disabled, and elderly.  Keep doing   
    LL> that for a few decades and then Republicans   
    LL> will win every election by default.   
      
    Except! The rich need poor people to serve them, so starvation   
    will just mean they have to force more of the middle class into   
    the poor. In the end they will find their policies self   
    destructive.   
      
    ...   
      
    LL>>> Imagine that.  Folks who never worked a day in their life   
    LL>>> are better off than folks who worked their butts off their   
    LL>>> entire lives.   
      
   BK>>An awful lot of those on SSI and Medicaid have worked, and   
   BK>>Medicaid is 2/3rds the handicapped and elderly, last I checked.   
      
    LL> They have not worked enough to earn the credits they need   
    LL> for retirement.  For most people, 40 credits (quarters) is   
    LL> the minimum. IOW, ten years of work over a lifetime (up to   
    LL> age 65).  It should also be kept in mind that not all   
    LL> governors have signed on to expanded medicaid, leaving many   
    LL> people unable to obtain insurance through Obamacare.   
      
    Yep, but even in Ohio the republican governor is trying an end   
    run around the republican legislature to get Medicaid expanded.   
      
    ...   
      
   BK>>Trust me, you are right. Though is just seems to me like a long   
   BK>>string of days off, or a very long vacation.   
      
    LL> That's (marginally) better than terminal sleep (death).   
      
    Nah, that's a lot better.   
      
    BK>>> When I was young they could tell us, if we succeeded in school   
    BK>>> we would have jobs. Now they tell kids, if they succeed in   
    BK>>> school it's less likely they will be the ones without jobs,   
    BK>>> someone else will be. Not much of a guarantee.   
      
    LL>>> Social Security used to be a guarantee.  Not any more.   
    LL>>> Pensions used to be a guarantee.  Not any more.   
      
   BK>>Social security will survive, unless the republicans get so much   
   BK>>power they can eliminate it quickly enough so the resistance can   
   BK>>not get organized.   
      
    LL> They'll probably water it down to the point that nobody   
    LL> will notice when the plug is pulled.   
      
    Then we must take to the ramparts at the first attempt!   
      
    Now, how's that French revolutionary song go?   
      
   ...   
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... Rationalization is White Wash for the soul.   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)