Separation of powers? What's that?

[Drooling Iguana]

I retract my earlier statement. It's your entire governmental structure that sucks. Crappy political parties are just a symptom of it.

Our governmental structure works just fine when it's not deliberately undermined by assholes for their own short term political gain.

A well-structured government takes assholes who undermine the system for their own short-term political gain into account. Yours does not, and was apparently conveived to function in some sort of fantasy world where politicians are honest.

[Axis Kast]

they should still push for better schooling however. thats probably one of the biggest problems.

That's a bigger issue. The federa government can't afford to pump all that money into schools like that because it's virtually impossible to differentiate. You'd just have to compromise for giving the worst areas extra aid - which is something already done. And that doesn't always answer the issue of inequality between the races. While financial and racial troubles are often linked, they are not necessarily one and the same.

The best answer to everything is Affirmative Action. It takes the equal or nearly equal who would be otherwise shunted aside and puts them in a position to achieve.

[kojikun]

This may sound a bit segregationalist, but someone should found a top class university specifically for black students so theres a place the top rating black kids can be guaranteed a better chance at getting in without having to have quotas, tho the idea has its own problems.

[Durandal]

A well-structured government takes assholes who undermine the system for their own short-term political gain into account. Yours does not, and was apparently conveived to function in some sort of fantasy world where politicians are honest.

Actually, our system was born out of compromises that came from all the framers mistrusting one another. The Senate and House are perfect examples of this. The House has representation based on state population, while the Federal Millionaire's Club, er Senate, has equal representation for each state. The people from the smaller states were afraid of the people from the larger states just forcing their will on everyone, so was born the Senate.

The United States' system is based more or less around the idea of any change, be it legislation, an amendment or whatever, would be difficult to implement; therefore, only necessary changes would get through the legislative process, and people would be forced to think about them before voting. That's why bills in Congress are famous for being mangled and deranged by the time they get to a vote, with completely unrelated clauses tacked on to them (like pork for a congressman's state).

What the framers did not count on was the stupidity of the average American in the year 2003. They assumed that most people would be educated and interested in politics, not completely apathetic like they are now. I don't think the framers could have imagined what a sorry state the populace would be in today (just look at Christian fundamentalism and the laws passed because of it). They'd be vomiting if anyone brought them to the future and explained the War on Drugs to them, for example.

[Drooling Iguana]

A well-structured government takes assholes who undermine the system for their own short-term political gain into account. Yours does not, and was apparently conveived to function in some sort of fantasy world where politicians are honest.

Actually, our system was born out of compromises that came from all the framers mistrusting one another. The Senate and House are perfect examples of this. The House has representation based on state population, while the Federal Millionaire's Club, er Senate, has equal representation for each state. The people from the smaller states were afraid of the people from the larger states just forcing their will on everyone, so was born the Senate.

The United States' system is based more or less around the idea of any change, be it legislation, an amendment or whatever, would be difficult to implement; therefore, only necessary changes would get through the legislative process, and people would be forced to think about them before voting. That's why bills in Congress are famous for being mangled and deranged by the time they get to a vote, with completely unrelated clauses tacked on to them (like pork for a congressman's state).[/quote[Whaterver it was designed it do, the evidence is clear that it didn't work.

What the framers did not count on was the stupidity of the average American in the year 2003. They assumed that most people would be educated and interested in politics, not completely apathetic like they are now. I don't think the framers could have imagined what a sorry state the populace would be in today (just look at Christian fundamentalism and the laws passed because of it). They'd be vomiting if anyone brought them to the future and explained the War on Drugs to them, for example.

Ah, the "good ol' days" fallacy. I was wondering how long that would take to show up.

[kojikun]

What we need is a test to proove that the person running for government knows the constitution and such. It should be mandatory that you have to be SMART before you can become the people in power.

[Drooling Iguana]

What we need is a test to proove that the person running for government knows the constitution and such. It should be mandatory that you have to be SMART before you can become the people in power. :|

That's part of the problem right there: People think of elected officials as rulers, and think that they should be smart so that they can make decisions for the common folk, when they're actually just supposed to be representatives that act as mouthpieces for those who elected them.

Of course, it's pretty tough for them to function in that capacity when the people only have two choices as to who to elect.

[Durandal]

Whaterver it was designed it do, the evidence is clear that it didn't work.

Ah, so we became the most powerful nation in the world just out of pure luck? Here's a hint, jackass, a country doesn't ascend to power and stay there as long as the United States has without having a working government.

If you've got a better system, feel free to outline one. Please also point out the massive flaws in the Constitution which you've noticed yet no one else has. Standing from afar and saying, "Your government sucks because some of your politicians are corrupt," doesn't count as a valid criticism.

Ah, the "good ol' days" fallacy. I was wondering how long that would take to show up.

Oh, another fuckwit newbie who throws around the names of logical fallacies like they're buzzwords without any kind of comprehension of what they actually mean. Gee, I was wondering how long it would be before one of those came along.

Fucking twat.

[Drooling Iguana]

Whaterver it was designed it do, the evidence is clear that it didn't work.

Ah, so we became the most powerful nation in the world just out of pure luck? Here's a hint, jackass, a country doesn't ascend to power and stay there as long as the United States has without having a working government.

Hitler's Germany was the most powerful nation on Earth at the start of World War II. The Soviet Union remained the second most powerful nation on Earth for half a century. Do you consider their systems of government to be something to aspire to?

If you've got a better system, feel free to outline one. Please also point out the massive flaws in the Constitution which you've noticed yet no one else has. Standing from afar and saying, "Your government sucks because some of your politicians are corrupt," doesn't count as a valid criticism.

I don't have a better system, and I haven't studied the Constitution enough to identify the pecific problems in it. It's just not my field. All I'm saying is that there is a fundamental problem in the structure of the United States government.

Ah, the "good ol' days" fallacy. I was wondering how long that would take to show up.

Oh, another fuckwit newbie who throws around the names of logical fallacies like they're buzzwords without any kind of comprehension of what they actually mean. Gee, I was wondering how long it would be before one of those came along.

Fucking twat.

I thought it would be pretty obvious what I meant, so I didn't bother elaborating. You claimed that somehow the average person in the late 18th century was inherantly more intelligent than the average 21st century person, which is pretty difficult to believe.

[Durandal]

Hitler's Germany was the most powerful nation on Earth at the start of World War II. The Soviet Union remained the second most powerful nation on Earth for half a century. Do you consider their systems of government to be something to aspire to?

I knew you were going to bring this up. Hitler was deposed in less than 20 years, smart-ass. The United States has been around just a bit longer than that (try ten times longer).

I don't have a better system, and I haven't studied the Constitution enough to identify the pecific problems in it. It's just not my field. All I'm saying is that there is a fundamental problem in the structure of the United States government.

Based on what? The fact that we have corrupt politicians? That's hardly indicative of a government that doesn't work. The system of checks and balances between three separate branches of government was basically revolutionary, and it still works well, even today. Prohibition is a perfect example of how checks and balances work. If a stupid piece of legislation like prohibition gets passed during unusual times (like when all the men are off fighting the war, leaving women, who want alcohol to be illegalized, as the major voting bloc), it can be struck down by another part of the government.

So, person who doesn't know jackshit about the United States' government, can you please explain your basis for saying that it is irrevocably flawed?

I thought it would be pretty obvious what I meant, so I didn't bother elaborating. You claimed that somehow the average person in the late 18th century was inherantly more intelligent than the average 21st century person, which is pretty difficult to believe.

So it's the "good old days" fallacy (appeal to tradition) to simply state that the rate of literacy and political involvement during the framers' time was higher than it is now? Here's a hint: to commit a fallacy, you have to argue something. Stating simple facts isn't fallacious. And excuse me for arguing that a politically active and more literate populace is a better one.

[Joe]

This may sound a bit segregationalist, but someone should found a top class university specifically for black students so theres a place the top rating black kids can be guaranteed a better chance at getting in without having to have quotas, tho the idea has its own problems.

Terrible idea. This will make employers look at the credentials of the students and say "Screw this shit, he's only where he is 'cause he's black."

[kojikun]

i would note that britain has had the same government for about a thousand years.

[Durandal]

i would note that britain has had the same government for about a thousand years.

They have the Parliament, which is basically Congress with a two-drink minimum, to quote Robin Williams.

[Knife]

The economicly challenged should get the affirmitive action no matter what color you are. And by curious coincidence, alot of black people would benifit from such a policy as well as brown, white, yellow, ect..... but it would not be racist.

I'm all for fighting injustice - but giving a student high grades just because he comes from a working-class home just sounds like an idea which could have originated in the mind of Vladimir Lenin. In other words, it smells like pure communism. (something I'm NOT very keen on!)

Not afirmitive action of grades, rather AA for admissions. Everyone would probable agree that education is the best way to succeed in todays world so the disadvantaged are those who can not afford higher education. If the goverment insists on helping groups of disadvantaged people, I would prefer that they help the poor rather than a 'minority group' because if you give AA to say 'black' people then all black people will benifit or at least stand the ability of benifiting (ie MJ's kids could check the box for AA on their colledge application) while if you give it to the poor, then you are helping those who would probably not go the college.

Besides, racism is racism no matter how you package it. I am not keen on racism and nobody has ever heard of poorism.

[Howedar]

God damn it! I fucking hate GWB, and I'd as soon vote for him as fly. But for fucks sakes, I have yet to hear anybody give me a satisfactory explaination for why, as a white guy, I can have higher grades and lose out on admission cause that dude over there is black.

Fuck affirmative action. Racism is wrong, no matter which way it slants.

[Vympel]

God damn it! I fucking hate GWB, and I'd as soon vote for him as fly. But for fucks sakes, I have yet to hear anybody give me a satisfactory explaination for why, as a white guy, I can have higher grades and lose out on admission cause that dude over there is black.

Fuck affirmative action. Racism is wrong, no matter which way it slants.

I'm with Howedar. Fuck Affirmative Action, it's far more just to give AA to someone who has the brains and not the money than to give it to someone who has the skin colour but not the brains.

[kojikun]

agreed. if theyre doing affirmative action and the people have almost identical grades. its stupid. and if the people have wildly varying grades then its even stupider. its not AS bad if its the first, but still useless because the person will get in somewhere else.

[Howedar]

Don't get me wrong, I think affirmative action is a nice idea. I'm sure the creators had none but the best intentions. But it doesn't work.


And my God, the fucking nerve of that Al Sharpton motherfucker, daring to say that he is the "right" kind of black man and Clarence Thomas is "not his kind". Christ, if I were Thomas I'd want to break that fucker's neck.

[Hobot]

Once again, Steve Kangas' Liberal FAQ comes to the rescue:

"Affirmative Action is not meant to help blacks because of the color of their skin, but because they deserve compensation for past and continuing injustices. Opponents may criticize the wisdom of how this compensation is meted out, but they cannot question the principle of compensatory damages, which enjoys a long tradition in our society. "

- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-reverse ... nation.htm

From the main essay:

"The situation is akin to the Jews who survived the Holocaust. Germany paid a large sum in compensatory damages to the state of Israel after World War II, and no one decried this as reverse racial discrimination."

[Stravo]

This may sound a bit segregationalist, but someone should found a top class university specifically for black students so theres a place the top rating black kids can be guaranteed a better chance at getting in without having to have quotas, tho the idea has its own problems.

Terrible idea. This will make employers look at the credentials of the students and say "Screw this shit, he's only where he is 'cause he's black."

And this is different under the current AA system now how?

[Stravo]

Once again, Steve Kangas' Liberal FAQ comes to the rescue:

"Affirmative Action is not meant to help blacks because of the color of their skin, but because they deserve compensation for past and continuing injustices. Opponents may criticize the wisdom of how this compensation is meted out, but they cannot question the principle of compensatory damages, which enjoys a long tradition in our society. "

- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-reverse ... nation.htm

From the main essay:

"The situation is akin to the Jews who survived the Holocaust. Germany paid a large sum in compensatory damages to the state of Israel after World War II, and no one decried this as reverse racial discrimination."

Wrong wrong wrong. The University system of AA is based on the principle of a compelling state interest that the higher educational system be as diverse as possible. My compelling question as Anton Scalia asked - WHY is this a compelling state interest? Compelling enough to curtail the rights of a majority? Compelling enough to curtail the rights of a poor majority? If you come from Appalachia, or fuck it inner city Detroit and you're white and you have the same or BETTER grades than some black kid from a modest middle income family household the black kid beats you to a slot in the university. Is this fair? Is the state interest to create a diverse higher education environment worth it?

I don't happen to think so because it goes against what America is all about, doing for yourself. If you bust your ass and study hard you will succeed. This is the American dream and implied promise to her citizens. NOT if you study hard and work you MIGHT get into the univeristy of your choice if you don't happen to be a minority.

AA in the workplace is NOT addressing these issues either because it creates an environment where a black co worker might be seen as filling a quota and not qualified to be in his position. Doesn't this go against the stated purpose of promoting diversity by formenting distrust against blacks?

When the NYT reporter was caught fabricating stories one of the first accusations was that the sole reason he got to the post where he was and allowed to fuck up as much as he did was BECAUSE he was black. If he were white, he would nto have gotten as far as he did. He did more to damage AA and its stated intentions than any right wing propaganda. There is a suspicion, mostly unspoken when we see these things and it involves a minority and I think that poisons the work place environment more than helping it.

[Hobot]

I don't happen to think so because it goes against what America is all about, doing for yourself. If you bust your ass and study hard you will succeed. This is the American dream and implied promise to her citizens. NOT if you study hard and work you MIGHT get into the univeristy of your choice if you don't happen to be a minority.

That's all fine and good, but the fact is that blacks have been severley mistreated by the US and as such they deserve compensation. The American Dream assumes everyone starts on a level playing field, but that isn't the case for blacks. AA is an attempt a leveling that playing field.

[Stravo]

I don't happen to think so because it goes against what America is all about, doing for yourself. If you bust your ass and study hard you will succeed. This is the American dream and implied promise to her citizens. NOT if you study hard and work you MIGHT get into the univeristy of your choice if you don't happen to be a minority.

That's all fine and good, but the fact is that blacks have been severley mistreated by the US and as such they deserve compensation. The American Dream assumes everyone starts on a level playing field, but that isn't the case for blacks. AA is an attempt a leveling that playing field.

Where does it stop? The ones most directly affected by slavery and its aftermath are dead, these are several generations removed from that time and we're still paying for it? What about the American Indians? We WIPED THEM OUT, not just enslaved them and then brought them into our culture. We stole their land, slaughtered them and ruined their culture forever and then gave them reservations to live on in desert lands and other similar paradises. If anyone has a claim to compensation it should be them. The American Indians as a people and a culture are all but extinct. What about the immigrants that were brought over as indentured servants and were discrimanted against for decades until they were finally assimlated? You see the slippery slope/thorny issue here.

Why are blacks accorded this special slot in our collective memeory as something that I have to pay for (my parents came here in 1960) as well as every other American. This smacks of the chidren paying for the sins of the father. The most direct compenation was the 60 acres and a mule to people who were DIRECTLY affected by the horrible slavery issue, not for us to coninute to pay retribution 140 years later. When was the last time you owned a slave?

If you go down the path of "well they've been discrimated against" I can point to EVERY SINGLE immigrant group that has come down the pike and should they also receive compensation? Should my father receive compensation for beiong called a Spick?

There has to come a point where it stops and they have to make due with what they have just as my parents did and everyone else that comes here seeking a better life and nto looking for a leg up just a fair shot.

[Sea Skimmer]

Indians broke just as many treaties as the other side did and fought a brutal conflict against American citizens, people who scalp men alive and then get slaughtered for it I have no sympathy for. Few tribes even had a concept of landownership beyond however could control it by force. They lost as there own game and got killed by westerns rather then other tribes. Horrors.

[Peregrin Toker]

Indians broke just as many treaties as the other side did and fought a brutal conflict against American citizens, people who scalp men alive and then get slaughtered for it I have no sympathy for.

Not all of the natives scalped people alive.